Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Three insurmountable proofs Darwin was WRONG

Willows
Posts: 11,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

A kiwi survives with partial wings, so do common fowl. Species that developed wings did out of necessity to more successfully avoid predators, again it took many species before an eagle came to be.

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?
A lot. There are many species in existence with a "bit" of an eye and varying degrees of sight...they can just make out something moving which is enough for them to avoid being eaten. As competition between different animals intensifies it will be the species with slightly better eyes that survive better and multiply....again this happens over a long period of time.

When you say "Darwin got it completely wrong", I suspect that you are quoting from a highly biased creationist source. From your lack of actual knowledge of the basic fundamentals of biology and evolution, I can tell that you have not read The Origin of the Species, nor any other publications that accurately confirm Darwin's findings.

The three points you raised coincide with very old objections raised by creationists and have been well and truly covered and completely dismissed by the proven facts.
Skeptical1
Posts: 1,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 5:53:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

A kiwi survives with partial wings, so do common fowl. Species that developed wings did out of necessity to more successfully avoid predators, again it took many species before an eagle came to be.

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?
A lot. There are many species in existence with a "bit" of an eye and varying degrees of sight...they can just make out something moving which is enough for them to avoid being eaten. As competition between different animals intensifies it will be the species with slightly better eyes that survive better and multiply....again this happens over a long period of time.

When you say "Darwin got it completely wrong", I suspect that you are quoting from a highly biased creationist source. From your lack of actual knowledge of the basic fundamentals of biology and evolution, I can tell that you have not read The Origin of the Species, nor any other publications that accurately confirm Darwin's findings.

The three points you raised coincide with very old objections raised by creationists and have been well and truly covered and completely dismissed by the proven facts.

Clearly, you didn't get the sarcasm. Nor the fact that I was pointing out that it was Darwin himself who not only asked but answered the questions. Did you not read to the bottom of the article? You appear to have chopped it off in your response, so I'll just assume you didn't see it.
Ethang5: Children cannot be morons.
Skeptical1: The only thing you have demonstrated is they don't have a monopoly on it.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 6:36:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

That's not what the fossil record shows.

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

A kiwi survives with partial wings, so do common fowl. Species that developed wings did out of necessity to more successfully avoid predators, again it took many species before an eagle came to be.

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?
A lot. There are many species in existence with a "bit" of an eye and varying degrees of sight...they can just make out something moving which is enough for them to avoid being eaten. As competition between different animals intensifies it will be the species with slightly better eyes that survive better and multiply....again this happens over a long period of time.

When you say "Darwin got it completely wrong", I suspect that you are quoting from a highly biased creationist source. From your lack of actual knowledge of the basic fundamentals of biology and evolution, I can tell that you have not read The Origin of the Species, nor any other publications that accurately confirm Darwin's findings.

The three points you raised coincide with very old objections raised by creationists and have been well and truly covered and completely dismissed by the proven facts.
Skepticalone
Posts: 8,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/4/2016 8:26:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The people who jumped on the OP for 'criticizing' evolution should probably be a little more diligent about understanding the posts they reply to. How embarrassing.
Don't join dangerous cults: Practice safe sects.
Willows
Posts: 11,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 2:16:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2016 6:36:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

That's not what the fossil record shows.
What do the fossil records show?

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

A kiwi survives with partial wings, so do common fowl. Species that developed wings did out of necessity to more successfully avoid predators, again it took many species before an eagle came to be.

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?
A lot. There are many species in existence with a "bit" of an eye and varying degrees of sight...they can just make out something moving which is enough for them to avoid being eaten. As competition between different animals intensifies it will be the species with slightly better eyes that survive better and multiply....again this happens over a long period of time.

When you say "Darwin got it completely wrong", I suspect that you are quoting from a highly biased creationist source. From your lack of actual knowledge of the basic fundamentals of biology and evolution, I can tell that you have not read The Origin of the Species, nor any other publications that accurately confirm Darwin's findings.

The three points you raised coincide with very old objections raised by creationists and have been well and truly covered and completely dismissed by the proven facts.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 10:45:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2016 2:16:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 6:36:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

That's not what the fossil record shows.
What do the fossil records show?

Sudden appearances of new phyla (Cambrian) and new species, then stasis, then sudden appearances of new species again. Not a slow incremental progression. That's why they invented punctuated equilibrium. We even see it now. A species of lizard developed an entirely new gut structure is less than 30 years. I believe in evolution, but I think it happens fast, not slowly. And I think it happens saltationally.


2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

A kiwi survives with partial wings, so do common fowl. Species that developed wings did out of necessity to more successfully avoid predators, again it took many species before an eagle came to be.

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?
A lot. There are many species in existence with a "bit" of an eye and varying degrees of sight...they can just make out something moving which is enough for them to avoid being eaten. As competition between different animals intensifies it will be the species with slightly better eyes that survive better and multiply....again this happens over a long period of time.

When you say "Darwin got it completely wrong", I suspect that you are quoting from a highly biased creationist source. From your lack of actual knowledge of the basic fundamentals of biology and evolution, I can tell that you have not read The Origin of the Species, nor any other publications that accurately confirm Darwin's findings.

The three points you raised coincide with very old objections raised by creationists and have been well and truly covered and completely dismissed by the proven facts.
Willows
Posts: 11,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:24:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2016 10:45:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 2:16:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 6:36:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

That's not what the fossil record shows.
What do the fossil records show?

Sudden appearances of new phyla (Cambrian) and new species, then stasis, then sudden appearances of new species again. Not a slow incremental progression. That's why they invented punctuated equilibrium. We even see it now. A species of lizard developed an entirely new gut structure is less than 30 years. I believe in evolution, but I think it happens fast, not slowly. And I think it happens saltationally.

That's an interesting book you've been reading, but just to put it all in context:
The "sudden" appearance of new phyla went on for some 15 to 20 million years.

Whilst there are always punctuated bursts through time due to "sudden" environmental changes you will still see the gradual evolution of those species as they adapt better and compete with others....those changes are not incremental.

For example, there were many gradual changes through different species before we can distinguish the species, homo sapiens who adapted and competed for survival following a very gradual continental drift.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:27:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2016 11:24:29 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/5/2016 10:45:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 2:16:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 6:36:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

That's not what the fossil record shows.
What do the fossil records show?

Sudden appearances of new phyla (Cambrian) and new species, then stasis, then sudden appearances of new species again. Not a slow incremental progression. That's why they invented punctuated equilibrium. We even see it now. A species of lizard developed an entirely new gut structure is less than 30 years. I believe in evolution, but I think it happens fast, not slowly. And I think it happens saltationally.

That's an interesting book you've been reading, but just to put it all in context:
The "sudden" appearance of new phyla went on for some 15 to 20 million years.

Each of the new phyla a species showed up suddenly, with no precursors. Show me the ancestor of a trilobite. There isn't one in the fossil record.

Whilst there are always punctuated bursts through time due to "sudden" environmental changes you will still see the gradual evolution of those species as they adapt better and compete with others....those changes are not incremental.

For example, there were many gradual changes through different species before we can distinguish the species, homo sapiens who adapted and competed for survival following a very gradual continental drift.
Willows
Posts: 11,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:44:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2016 11:27:07 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:24:29 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/5/2016 10:45:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 2:16:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 6:36:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

That's not what the fossil record shows.
What do the fossil records show?

Sudden appearances of new phyla (Cambrian) and new species, then stasis, then sudden appearances of new species again. Not a slow incremental progression. That's why they invented punctuated equilibrium. We even see it now. A species of lizard developed an entirely new gut structure is less than 30 years. I believe in evolution, but I think it happens fast, not slowly. And I think it happens saltationally.

That's an interesting book you've been reading, but just to put it all in context:
The "sudden" appearance of new phyla went on for some 15 to 20 million years.

Each of the new phyla a species showed up suddenly, with no precursors. Show me the ancestor of a trilobite. There isn't one in the fossil record.

When you say "suddenly", what are you alluding to? A split second, a year, thousands of years? And what is your point anyway?

The fact that the "fossil record" is far from complete does not necessarily mean we can make a finite conclusion, does it?
Silly_Billy
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:51:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2016 11:27:07 PM, janesix wrote:

Each of the new phyla a species showed up suddenly, with no precursors. Show me the ancestor of a trilobite. There isn't one in the fossil record.


The further back in time that you go, the less evidence that you will have. The absence of a trilobite ancestor fossil does not disprove evolution as a method of species-diversification or the fact that mankind evolved from an ape-like ancestor, it simply hints at the probability that the lifeforms that preceded the trilobites may not have had the exo-skeleton structure that allowed for the trilobites to be fosselized as well as they did.

In response though, show me any evidence of intelligent design that can not be explained through any natural proces such as evolution.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:54:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2016 11:50:53 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
<<ATHEIST'S GOD, which is time, DEBUNKED ONCE AGAIN BY THEIR OWN "SCIENTIFIC METHOD"
http://creation.com...

The funny thing is that the scientific methods may cast doubts on certain scientific certainties from time to time, but it will never cast any doubt on the fact that religion is deadwrong in everything that is says about the creation of the universe and life itself.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/5/2016 11:57:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2016 11:44:38 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:27:07 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:24:29 PM, Willows wrote:
At 11/5/2016 10:45:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 2:16:55 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 6:36:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/4/2016 5:48:32 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

We do, and species are continuing to evolve into others, but it doesn't happen over night or even thousands of years....it is very gradual over millions of years.

That's not what the fossil record shows.
What do the fossil records show?

Sudden appearances of new phyla (Cambrian) and new species, then stasis, then sudden appearances of new species again. Not a slow incremental progression. That's why they invented punctuated equilibrium. We even see it now. A species of lizard developed an entirely new gut structure is less than 30 years. I believe in evolution, but I think it happens fast, not slowly. And I think it happens saltationally.

That's an interesting book you've been reading, but just to put it all in context:
The "sudden" appearance of new phyla went on for some 15 to 20 million years.

Each of the new phyla a species showed up suddenly, with no precursors. Show me the ancestor of a trilobite. There isn't one in the fossil record.

When you say "suddenly", what are you alluding to? A split second, a year, thousands of years? And what is your point anyway?

The only fossils we have before the Cambrian fauna are bacteria, algae, worms, sponges and ediacarans. Then we have brand new phyla with no obvious ancestors. There are no obvious lineage/ ancestry between the new phyla. Where did they come from? Practically every part of an animal is represented here with no ancestry. Eyes, brains, everything "complex" that should take millions of years of incremental steps. But there they are, fully formed with no ancestry. What happened ?

The fact that the "fossil record" is far from complete does not necessarily mean we can make a finite conclusion, does it?

I accept that it may not be complete. But the fact that there are cambrian deposits all over the world with the same phyla, yet not one fossil of possible ancestors makes me think the fossil record is complete as its going to get.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:04:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2016 11:51:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:27:07 PM, janesix wrote:

Each of the new phyla a species showed up suddenly, with no precursors. Show me the ancestor of a trilobite. There isn't one in the fossil record.


The further back in time that you go, the less evidence that you will have. The absence of a trilobite ancestor fossil does not disprove evolution as a method of species-diversification or the fact that mankind evolved from an ape-like ancestor, it simply hints at the probability that the lifeforms that preceded the trilobites may not have had the exo-skeleton structure that allowed for the trilobites to be fosselized as well as they did.

In response though, show me any evidence of intelligent design that can not be explained through any natural proces such as evolution.

I have already explained to you that i am an evolutionist but i believe in saltation, and i think the fossil record is evidence for this.

About soft parts not fossilizing is wrong. Sponges, thier eggs, worms, and bacterial mats are all soft and they fossilize.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:17:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2016 12:04:24 AM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:51:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:27:07 PM, janesix wrote:

Each of the new phyla a species showed up suddenly, with no precursors. Show me the ancestor of a trilobite. There isn't one in the fossil record.


The further back in time that you go, the less evidence that you will have. The absence of a trilobite ancestor fossil does not disprove evolution as a method of species-diversification or the fact that mankind evolved from an ape-like ancestor, it simply hints at the probability that the lifeforms that preceded the trilobites may not have had the exo-skeleton structure that allowed for the trilobites to be fosselized as well as they did.

In response though, show me any evidence of intelligent design that can not be explained through any natural proces such as evolution.

I have already explained to you that i am an evolutionist but i believe in saltation, and i think the fossil record is evidence for this.

About soft parts not fossilizing is wrong. Sponges, thier eggs, worms, and bacterial mats are all soft and they fossilize.

Saltation can do a lot in a very short time but even with saltation, that what a new species becomes will still in large part resemble the species that came before and as such, a trilobite ancestor would have had some (if not even most) of the characteristics of a trilobite even if no fosils of that ancestor has ever been found. It is ofcoarse possible that this earlier ancestor only lived in a very small part of the oceans and that the trilobite gained the ability to survive where the trilobite ancestors could not.
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:27:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2016 12:17:10 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:04:24 AM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:51:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:27:07 PM, janesix wrote:

Each of the new phyla a species showed up suddenly, with no precursors. Show me the ancestor of a trilobite. There isn't one in the fossil record.


The further back in time that you go, the less evidence that you will have. The absence of a trilobite ancestor fossil does not disprove evolution as a method of species-diversification or the fact that mankind evolved from an ape-like ancestor, it simply hints at the probability that the lifeforms that preceded the trilobites may not have had the exo-skeleton structure that allowed for the trilobites to be fosselized as well as they did.

In response though, show me any evidence of intelligent design that can not be explained through any natural proces such as evolution.

I have already explained to you that i am an evolutionist but i believe in saltation, and i think the fossil record is evidence for this.

About soft parts not fossilizing is wrong. Sponges, thier eggs, worms, and bacterial mats are all soft and they fossilize.

Saltation can do a lot in a very short time but even with saltation, that what a new species becomes will still in large part resemble the species that came before and as such, a trilobite ancestor would have had some (if not even most) of the characteristics of a trilobite even if no fosils of that ancestor has ever been found. It is ofcoarse possible that this earlier ancestor only lived in a very small part of the oceans and that the trilobite gained the ability to survive where the trilobite ancestors could not.

Cambrian fossils are located all over the world. Yet not one ancestor fossil has ever been found.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:30:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2016 12:27:34 AM, janesix wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:17:10 AM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:04:24 AM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:51:16 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:27:07 PM, janesix wrote:

Each of the new phyla a species showed up suddenly, with no precursors. Show me the ancestor of a trilobite. There isn't one in the fossil record.


The further back in time that you go, the less evidence that you will have. The absence of a trilobite ancestor fossil does not disprove evolution as a method of species-diversification or the fact that mankind evolved from an ape-like ancestor, it simply hints at the probability that the lifeforms that preceded the trilobites may not have had the exo-skeleton structure that allowed for the trilobites to be fosselized as well as they did.

In response though, show me any evidence of intelligent design that can not be explained through any natural proces such as evolution.

I have already explained to you that i am an evolutionist but i believe in saltation, and i think the fossil record is evidence for this.

About soft parts not fossilizing is wrong. Sponges, thier eggs, worms, and bacterial mats are all soft and they fossilize.

Saltation can do a lot in a very short time but even with saltation, that what a new species becomes will still in large part resemble the species that came before and as such, a trilobite ancestor would have had some (if not even most) of the characteristics of a trilobite even if no fosils of that ancestor has ever been found. It is ofcoarse possible that this earlier ancestor only lived in a very small part of the oceans and that the trilobite gained the ability to survive where the trilobite ancestors could not.

Cambrian fossils are located all over the world. Yet not one ancestor fossil has ever been found.

As i said, it is ofcoarse possible that this earlier ancestor only lived in a very small part of the oceans, perhaps in an area smaller even than Ireland which may have dissapeared into the Earth's crust millions of years ago, and the trilobites gained the ability to survive where the trilobite ancestors could not thereby spreading out into all the oceans everywhere.
Willows
Posts: 11,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:45:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/5/2016 11:57:38 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:44:38 PM, Willows wrote:

The only fossils we have before the Cambrian fauna are bacteria, algae, worms, sponges and ediacarans. Then we have brand new phyla with no obvious ancestors. There are no obvious lineage/ ancestry between the new phyla. Where did they come from? Practically every part of an animal is represented here with no ancestry. Eyes, brains, everything "complex" that should take millions of years of incremental steps. But there they are, fully formed with no ancestry. What happened ?

Scientists have had very few if any, specimens of fossilised tissue, for the obvious reason that it decomposes very quickly although as recently as last week, they have been able to examine fossilised brain tissue of a species of dinosaur.

There is enough evidence to show that complex organs have and do evolve without looking at fossils. There are many current species with varying degrees of eye development.
Some deep sea fish have barely crude eyes, no more than a basic sensor that can only distinguish movement but adequate for their immediate needs to survive. As the competition amongst other fish higher up in the ocean increases we see more developed forms of eyes.

I accept that it may not be complete. But the fact that there are cambrian deposits all over the world with the same phyla, yet not one fossil of possible ancestors makes me think the fossil record is complete as its going to get.

Phyla are just one group of life-form, there are thousands of others.
Without checking the facts of whether we have or why we don't have such ancestral
fossil records we still have a wealth of evidence to confirm the very strong probability that all life evolved.
Picking an isolated anomaly in scientific evidence is not a good reason alone to make an alternative conclusion, is it?
janesix
Posts: 8,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:50:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2016 12:45:18 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:57:38 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:44:38 PM, Willows wrote:

The only fossils we have before the Cambrian fauna are bacteria, algae, worms, sponges and ediacarans. Then we have brand new phyla with no obvious ancestors. There are no obvious lineage/ ancestry between the new phyla. Where did they come from? Practically every part of an animal is represented here with no ancestry. Eyes, brains, everything "complex" that should take millions of years of incremental steps. But there they are, fully formed with no ancestry. What happened ?

Scientists have had very few if any, specimens of fossilised tissue, for the obvious reason that it decomposes very quickly although as recently as last week, they have been able to examine fossilised brain tissue of a species of dinosaur.

There is enough evidence to show that complex organs have and do evolve without looking at fossils. There are many current species with varying degrees of eye development.
Some deep sea fish have barely crude eyes, no more than a basic sensor that can only distinguish movement but adequate for their immediate needs to survive. As the competition amongst other fish higher up in the ocean increases we see more developed forms of eyes.


I accept that it may not be complete. But the fact that there are cambrian deposits all over the world with the same phyla, yet not one fossil of possible ancestors makes me think the fossil record is complete as its going to get.

Phyla are just one group of life-form, there are thousands of others.
Without checking the facts of whether we have or why we don't have such ancestral
fossil records we still have a wealth of evidence to confirm the very strong probability that all life evolved.
Picking an isolated anomaly in scientific evidence is not a good reason alone to make an alternative conclusion, is it?

I never said life didnt evolve. I said it didnt evolve in slow incremental steps. It evolves saltaionally, and the fossil record supports this.
Willows
Posts: 11,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 1:09:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2016 12:50:54 AM, janesix wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:45:18 AM, Willows wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:57:38 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/5/2016 11:44:38 PM, Willows wrote:

The only fossils we have before the Cambrian fauna are bacteria, algae, worms, sponges and ediacarans. Then we have brand new phyla with no obvious ancestors. There are no obvious lineage/ ancestry between the new phyla. Where did they come from? Practically every part of an animal is represented here with no ancestry. Eyes, brains, everything "complex" that should take millions of years of incremental steps. But there they are, fully formed with no ancestry. What happened ?

Scientists have had very few if any, specimens of fossilised tissue, for the obvious reason that it decomposes very quickly although as recently as last week, they have been able to examine fossilised brain tissue of a species of dinosaur.

There is enough evidence to show that complex organs have and do evolve without looking at fossils. There are many current species with varying degrees of eye development.
Some deep sea fish have barely crude eyes, no more than a basic sensor that can only distinguish movement but adequate for their immediate needs to survive. As the competition amongst other fish higher up in the ocean increases we see more developed forms of eyes.


I accept that it may not be complete. But the fact that there are cambrian deposits all over the world with the same phyla, yet not one fossil of possible ancestors makes me think the fossil record is complete as its going to get.

Phyla are just one group of life-form, there are thousands of others.
Without checking the facts of whether we have or why we don't have such ancestral
fossil records we still have a wealth of evidence to confirm the very strong probability that all life evolved.
Picking an isolated anomaly in scientific evidence is not a good reason alone to make an alternative conclusion, is it?

I never said life didnt evolve. I said it didnt evolve in slow incremental steps. It evolves saltaionally, and the fossil record supports this.

I didn't say you said that either. The fossil record may support the theory of stops and starts but there can be many reasons for this, one being what we just discussed, the lack of fossilized tissue.
We also need to consider that there is also evidence of many other species that have evolved from one to the other and branched out into sub-species.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 11:09:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

I erased all your ridiculous deflections So just address the science if you even know how.
The "Answers" are typical evolutionists answers and the rebuttals are for their inability to address the science so the need to be put back on subject.
1) How did the DNA code originate?

Answer 1: This is not an evolution question, because evolution starts with an already-reproducing organism.

Rebuttal: But this is something evolution must assume. Leading philosopher Antony Flew lost his atheistic faith by considering (among other things):

"It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.
"Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."2
If there"s no way for the DNA code to come about via natural processes, evolution is impossible.

2) Antony Flew ,world famous Oxfford atheists for over 50 years,went on to say that such DNA research "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved." My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: an exclusive interview with former British atheist Professor Antony Flew by Gary Habermas, Philosophia Christi, Winter 2005.

If there"s no way for the DNA code to come about via natural processes, evolution is impossible. A huge problem is this: the DNA information requires complex decoding machines, including the ribosome, so it can be decoded into the specifications to build the proteins required for life, including enzymes. But the information required to build ribosomes is itself encoded on the DNA. So DNA information can"t be decoded without products of its translation, forming a "vicious circle". And decoding machinery requires energy from ATP, built by ATP-synthase motors, built from instructions in the DNA decoded by ribosomes " "vicious circles" for any materialistic origin theory.

Answer 2: Originally, life used RNA instead of DNA to encode information.

Rebuttal: First, where is the evidence for this, such as fossilized ancestral RNA life? Second, the RNA world hypothesis is fraught with difficulties. RNA is even less stable than DNA, and that is saying something"about a million DNA "letters" are damaged in a typical cell on a good day, which then requires repair mechanisms to be in place (another problem for origin-of-life scenarios). And it is extremely unlikely that the building blocks for RNA would come about by undirected chemical interactions, and even if this happened, it would be even more improbable that the building blocks would self-assemble into any RNA molecule, let alone an informational one. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. See this article for more details, which discusses the objections of a major origin-of-life researcher to the "RNA world" hypothesis.

Answer 3: It is disingenuous to argue from the current DNA code, because the original code would have been much simpler.

Rebuttal: This is most disingenuous. So many evolutionists have appealed to the common DNA code to "prove" common ancestry. But now they are claiming that the first life had a different code not possessed by any living creature! But how could we go from the hypothetical simpler coding system to the current one? It would be like switching keys on a computer keyboard"the messages would become scrambled (as anyone who is accustomed to a QWERTY keyboard who has tried to use a non-QWERTY Latin keyboard would know only too well).

Actually, it has long been known that there are exceptions to the code, as we have pointed out (see The Unity of Life) and that is a problem for evolutionists. Richard Dawkins was recently stumped when "life-creator" Craig Venter pointed out that there were different codes"Dawkins has long taught that evolution was supported by a single code and used this to argue for the single (evolutionary, of course) origin of all life.

There is a certain minimum amount of information which would have to be encoded for any living thing to survive. Currently, the self-replicating organism with the least amount of genetic information is the Mycoplasma genitalium with 580,000 "letters" coding for 482 proteins. But this can only survive as a parasite, so non-parasitical life would have to encode even more information. See How simple can life be?

Answer 4: The question of how the modern code emerged from these early predecessors is evolution itself. Random deviations in the nucleic acid structure would change the by-product produced, if the by-product was more efficient at replicating, it would overwhelm less efficient codes. This gradual change in the complexity of the underlying code is useful in explaining many aspects of biological theory. Such as why RNA is used as an intermediate between DNA and protein synthesis.

Rebuttal: Random deviations would randomly change the "by-product produced", so they would disrupt all the proteins encoded. RNA is used as an intermediate because it is more labile; it"s optimal for the short time frames needed for cell communications. It is a hopeless candidate for hypothetical eons in a primordial soup.

Answer 5: The words "code" and "language" are only metaphors when applied to the DNA code, and they have no reality outside our own mental constructs. In reality, the whole thing is dependent on chemical properties.

Rebuttal: Secular scientists refer to the nucleobases of DNA as "letters", so it"s hardly original to us. And we would agree that the workings of the code are due to chemical properties"we are not vitalists (see also Naturalism, Origins and Operational Science). But this doesn"t explain the origin of the code. Similarly, we believe that the workings of computer decoders can be explained totally by the laws of semi-conductor electron levels and other electrical properties, but these laws didn"t make the computer. Should we say then that there is no difference between a 500 GB hard drive and an old 2 MB one, because it has no reality outside our mind? Also, this is a rather petty thing to dispute, since it does not address any of the arguments from the pamphlet. One wonders why we received several objections of this nature.

Answer 6: It is easy to create amino acids and the building blocks for RNA by running an electrical charge through mineral-rich water.

Rebuttal: If you could actually get all the amino acids needed for life, and the sugars for RNA, from those conditions (which you can"t, since the conditions are incompatible, so this is a baseless assertion), that would be only the very first step. You then have to polymerize the amino acids in the right sequences into proteins (don"t forget about folding the proteins into precisely the right shape with chaperonins, because even one wrongly-folded protein can wreak havoc), and assemble all those proteins into micro-compartments to prevent the wrong things from reacting, then combine these compartments together to make the first cell. That is why such experiments never go beyond these simple "building blocks"; they are too dilute, contaminated, cross-reactive, and racemic (instead of being "one-handed"), to build anything. See Origin of life: instability of building blocks and Origin of life: the chirality problem. We have already covered the problems for the RNA world.
this site is dead. It doesn't even correctly post replies..
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 11:27:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2016 12:24:34 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:15:17 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?
Most quotes were prior to the 1990s which is when the need for transitional fossils cause evolutionist to call everything a transition as long as it fit in between strata where one animal fossil was separated from another.
http://home.apu.edu...
2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

Questions Evos don't like....I have plenty
SCIENCE INVOLVES EXPERIMENTING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW THINGS WORK; HOW THEY
OPERATE. WHY IS EVOLUTION, A THEORY ABOUT
HISTORY, TAUGHT AS IF IT IS THE SAME AS THIS
OPERATIONAL SCIENCE?
You cannot do experiments, or even observe what
happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed,
Richard Dawkins said, "Evolution has been observed. It"s
just that it hasn"t been observed while it"s happening." LkFAO Dick Dawkins not very bright.
. WHY IS A FUNDAMENTALLY RELIGIOUS
IDEA, A DOGMATIC BELIEF SYSTEM THAT FAILS
TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE, TAUGHT IN SCIENCE
CLASSES?
Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said
"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a
metaphysical [religious] research programme ...." Michael
Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, "Evolution
is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning,
and it is true of evolution still today." If "you can"t teach
religion in science classes", why is evolution taught?

THE ATHEISTS TRANSITIONAL MANTRA WHAT A JOKE......
(Answers are the groveling of the typical atheist)

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Answer 1: They aren"t missing. Every fossil ever found is a link between older and newer forms.

Rebuttal: This is assumed, not demonstrated. It is also patently absurd, as, numerically, the majority of fossils fit neatly into previously-described species (many of them documented in Living Fossils). It also obfuscates the real problem. Even on a species-by-species basis, transitional forms are the exception to the rule. There are only a handful of fossils claimed to be transitional between major groups of life. This was recognized by Darwin himself as a huge problem for his theory. And this handful of disputed fossils is different from the disputed handful of the past. For example, the coelacanth fish was presented by evolutionists as "the ancestor" of tetrapods (four-legged animals) for many years. It is no longer considered as such by evolutionary paleontologists, although it is still in many school textbooks. See: Famous Living Fossil "Link" Idea Fizzles Further.

There are only a handful of fossils claimed to be transitional between major groups of life.

Answer 2: Only a small fraction of animals are fossilized, the fossil record still remains largely incomplete.

Rebuttal: This begs the question, because the "evidence" that the fossil record is incomplete is the rarity of intermediates! This argument may have been convincing in Darwin"s day, although Darwin"s paleontological opponents like Richard Owen, Louis Agassiz and Adam Sedgwick, didn"t buy it, when there were only a small number of fossils that were known. But today we have fossilized representatives of every living animal phylum and every plant division. There are many phyla that have fossilized representatives of every living group or class. We have pointed out before that 97.7% of living orders of land vertebrates are represented as fossils and 79.1% of living families of land vertebrates"87.8% if birds are excluded, as they are less likely to become fossilized (see The links are missing). With so many forms accounted for, there doesn"t seem to be much room for transitional forms to do their work.

What evolutionists should say instead is that fossilization events are rare in processes occurring today. That should lead them to realize that fossils are mostly the result of an extra-ordinary event"such as a globe-covering flood that buried lots of creatures very fast, and prevented them from decomposing or being scavenged as today. See for example Hundreds of jellyfish fossils!"Darwin claimed, due to his faulty uniformitarian views, "No organism wholly soft can be preserved."
this site is dead. It doesn't even correctly post replies..
Skeptical1
Posts: 1,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 11:49:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2016 11:09:35 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:

I erased all your ridiculous deflections So just address the science if you even know how.
The "Answers" are typical evolutionists answers and the rebuttals are for their inability to address the science so the need to be put back on subject.
1) How did the DNA code originate?

Answer 1: This is not an evolution question, because evolution starts with an already-reproducing organism.

Rebuttal: But this is something evolution must assume. Leading philosopher Antony Flew lost his atheistic faith by considering (among other things):

"It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.
"Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."2
If there"s no way for the DNA code to come about via natural processes, evolution is impossible.

2) Antony Flew ,world famous Oxfford atheists for over 50 years,went on to say that such DNA research "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved." My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: an exclusive interview with former British atheist Professor Antony Flew by Gary Habermas, Philosophia Christi, Winter 2005.

If there"s no way for the DNA code to come about via natural processes, evolution is impossible. A huge problem is this: the DNA information requires complex decoding machines, including the ribosome, so it can be decoded into the specifications to build the proteins required for life, including enzymes. But the information required to build ribosomes is itself encoded on the DNA. So DNA information can"t be decoded without products of its translation, forming a "vicious circle". And decoding machinery requires energy from ATP, built by ATP-synthase motors, built from instructions in the DNA decoded by ribosomes " "vicious circles" for any materialistic origin theory.

Answer 2: Originally, life used RNA instead of DNA to encode information.

Rebuttal: First, where is the evidence for this, such as fossilized ancestral RNA life? Second, the RNA world hypothesis is fraught with difficulties. RNA is even less stable than DNA, and that is saying something"about a million DNA "letters" are damaged in a typical cell on a good day, which then requires repair mechanisms to be in place (another problem for origin-of-life scenarios). And it is extremely unlikely that the building blocks for RNA would come about by undirected chemical interactions, and even if this happened, it would be even more improbable that the building blocks would self-assemble into any RNA molecule, let alone an informational one. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. See this article for more details, which discusses the objections of a major origin-of-life researcher to the "RNA world" hypothesis.

Answer 3: It is disingenuous to argue from the current DNA code, because the original code would have been much simpler.

Rebuttal: This is most disingenuous. So many evolutionists have appealed to the common DNA code to "prove" common ancestry. But now they are claiming that the first life had a different code not possessed by any living creature! But how could we go from the hypothetical simpler coding system to the current one? It would be like switching keys on a computer keyboard"the messages would become scrambled (as anyone who is accustomed to a QWERTY keyboard who has tried to use a non-QWERTY Latin keyboard would know only too well).

Actually, it has long been known that there are exceptions to the code, as we have pointed out (see The Unity of Life) and that is a problem for evolutionists. Richard Dawkins was recently stumped when "life-creator" Craig Venter pointed out that there were different codes"Dawkins has long taught that evolution was supported by a single code and used this to argue for the single (evolutionary, of course) origin of all life.

There is a certain minimum amount of information which would have to be encoded for any living thing to survive. Currently, the self-replicating organism with the least amount of genetic information is the Mycoplasma genitalium with 580,000 "letters" coding for 482 proteins. But this can only survive as a parasite, so non-parasitical life would have to encode even more information. See How simple can life be?

Answer 4: The question of how the modern code emerged from these early predecessors is evolution itself. Random deviations in the nucleic acid structure would change the by-product produced, if the by-product was more efficient at replicating, it would overwhelm less efficient codes. This gradual change in the complexity of the underlying code is useful in explaining many aspects of biological theory. Such as why RNA is used as an intermediate between DNA and protein synthesis.

Rebuttal: Random deviations would randomly change the "by-product produced", so they would disrupt all the proteins encoded. RNA is used as an intermediate because it is more labile; it"s optimal for the short time frames needed for cell communications. It is a hopeless candidate for hypothetical eons in a primordial soup.

Answer 5: The words "code" and "language" are only metaphors when applied to the DNA code, and they have no reality outside our own mental constructs. In reality, the whole thing is dependent on chemical properties.

Rebuttal: Secular scientists refer to the nucleobases of DNA as "letters", so it"s hardly original to us. And we would agree that the workings of the code are due to chemical properties"we are not vitalists (see also Naturalism, Origins and Operational Science). But this doesn"t explain the origin of the code. Similarly, we believe that the workings of computer decoders can be explained totally by the laws of semi-conductor electron levels and other electrical properties, but these laws didn"t make the computer. Should we say then that there is no difference between a 500 GB hard drive and an old 2 MB one, because it has no reality outside our mind? Also, this is a rather petty thing to dispute, since it does not address any of the arguments from the pamphlet. One wonders why we received several objections of this nature.

Answer 6: It is easy to create amino acids and the building blocks for RNA by running an electrical charge through mineral-rich water.

Rebuttal: If you could actually get all the amino acids needed for life, and the sugars for RNA, from those conditions (which you can"t, since the conditions are incompatible, so this is a baseless assertion), that would be only the very first step. You then have to polymerize the amino acids in the right sequences into proteins (don"t forget about folding the proteins into precisely the right shape with chaperonins, because even one wrongly-folded protein can wreak havoc), and assemble all those proteins into micro-compartments to prevent the wrong things from reacting, then combine these compartments together to make the first cell. That is why such experiments never go beyond these simple "building blocks"; they are too dilute, contaminated, cross-reactive, and racemic (instead of being "one-handed"), to build anything. See Origin of life: instability of building blocks and Origin of life: the chirality problem. We have already covered the problems for the RNA world.

And still you can't think for yourself.
Ethang5: Children cannot be morons.
Skeptical1: The only thing you have demonstrated is they don't have a monopoly on it.
Skeptical1
Posts: 1,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 11:52:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2016 11:27:31 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:24:34 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:15:17 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?
Most quotes were prior to the 1990s which is when the need for transitional fossils cause evolutionist to call everything a transition as long as it fit in between strata where one animal fossil was separated from another.
http://home.apu.edu...
2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

Questions Evos don't like....I have plenty
SCIENCE INVOLVES EXPERIMENTING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW THINGS WORK; HOW THEY
OPERATE. WHY IS EVOLUTION, A THEORY ABOUT
HISTORY, TAUGHT AS IF IT IS THE SAME AS THIS
OPERATIONAL SCIENCE?
You cannot do experiments, or even observe what
happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed,
Richard Dawkins said, "Evolution has been observed. It"s
just that it hasn"t been observed while it"s happening." LkFAO Dick Dawkins not very bright.
. WHY IS A FUNDAMENTALLY RELIGIOUS
IDEA, A DOGMATIC BELIEF SYSTEM THAT FAILS
TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE, TAUGHT IN SCIENCE
CLASSES?
Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said
"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a
metaphysical [religious] research programme ...." Michael
Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, "Evolution
is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning,
and it is true of evolution still today." If "you can"t teach
religion in science classes", why is evolution taught?

THE ATHEISTS TRANSITIONAL MANTRA WHAT A JOKE......
(Answers are the groveling of the typical atheist)

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Answer 1: They aren"t missing. Every fossil ever found is a link between older and newer forms.

Rebuttal: This is assumed, not demonstrated. It is also patently absurd, as, numerically, the majority of fossils fit neatly into previously-described species (many of them documented in Living Fossils). It also obfuscates the real problem. Even on a species-by-species basis, transitional forms are the exception to the rule. There are only a handful of fossils claimed to be transitional between major groups of life. This was recognized by Darwin himself as a huge problem for his theory. And this handful of disputed fossils is different from the disputed handful of the past. For example, the coelacanth fish was presented by evolutionists as "the ancestor" of tetrapods (four-legged animals) for many years. It is no longer considered as such by evolutionary paleontologists, although it is still in many school textbooks. See: Famous Living Fossil "Link" Idea Fizzles Further.

There are only a handful of fossils claimed to be transitional between major groups of life.

Answer 2: Only a small fraction of animals are fossilized, the fossil record still remains largely incomplete.

Rebuttal: This begs the question, because the "evidence" that the fossil record is incomplete is the rarity of intermediates! This argument may have been convincing in Darwin"s day, although Darwin"s paleontological opponents like Richard Owen, Louis Agassiz and Adam Sedgwick, didn"t buy it, when there were only a small number of fossils that were known. But today we have fossilized representatives of every living animal phylum and every plant division. There are many phyla that have fossilized representatives of every living group or class. We have pointed out before that 97.7% of living orders of land vertebrates are represented as fossils and 79.1% of living families of land vertebrates"87.8% if birds are excluded, as they are less likely to become fossilized (see The links are missing). With so many forms accounted for, there doesn"t seem to be much room for transitional forms to do their work.

What evolutionists should say instead is that fossilization events are rare in processes occurring today. That should lead them to realize that fossils are mostly the result of an extra-ordinary event"such as a globe-covering flood that buried lots of creatures very fast, and prevented them from decomposing or being scavenged as today. See for example Hundreds of jellyfish fossils!"Darwin claimed, due to his faulty uniformitarian views, "No organism wholly soft can be preserved."

It's good to see you've learned to copy & paste. Well done.
Ethang5: Children cannot be morons.
Skeptical1: The only thing you have demonstrated is they don't have a monopoly on it.
Skeptical1
Posts: 1,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:01:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2016 11:27:31 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:24:34 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:15:17 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?
Most quotes were prior to the 1990s which is when the need for transitional fossils cause evolutionist to call everything a transition as long as it fit in between strata where one animal fossil was separated from another.
http://home.apu.edu...
2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

Questions Evos don't like....I have plenty
SCIENCE INVOLVES EXPERIMENTING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW THINGS WORK; HOW THEY
OPERATE. WHY IS EVOLUTION, A THEORY ABOUT
HISTORY, TAUGHT AS IF IT IS THE SAME AS THIS
OPERATIONAL SCIENCE?
You cannot do experiments, or even observe what
happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed,
Richard Dawkins said, "Evolution has been observed. It"s
just that it hasn"t been observed while it"s happening." LkFAO Dick Dawkins not very bright.
. WHY IS A FUNDAMENTALLY RELIGIOUS
IDEA, A DOGMATIC BELIEF SYSTEM THAT FAILS
TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE, TAUGHT IN SCIENCE
CLASSES?
Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said
"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a
metaphysical [religious] research programme ...." Michael
Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, "Evolution
is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning,
and it is true of evolution still today." If "you can"t teach
religion in science classes", why is evolution taught?

THE ATHEISTS TRANSITIONAL MANTRA WHAT A JOKE......
(Answers are the groveling of the typical atheist)

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Answer 1: They aren"t missing. Every fossil ever found is a link between older and newer forms.

Rebuttal: This is assumed, not demonstrated. It is also patently absurd, as, numerically, the majority of fossils fit neatly into previously-described species (many of them documented in Living Fossils). It also obfuscates the real problem. Even on a species-by-species basis, transitional forms are the exception to the rule. There are only a handful of fossils claimed to be transitional between major groups of life. This was recognized by Darwin himself as a huge problem for his theory. And this handful of disputed fossils is different from the disputed handful of the past. For example, the coelacanth fish was presented by evolutionists as "the ancestor" of tetrapods (four-legged animals) for many years. It is no longer considered as such by evolutionary paleontologists, although it is still in many school textbooks. See: Famous Living Fossil "Link" Idea Fizzles Further.

There are only a handful of fossils claimed to be transitional between major groups of life.

Answer 2: Only a small fraction of animals are fossilized, the fossil record still remains largely incomplete.

Rebuttal: This begs the question, because the "evidence" that the fossil record is incomplete is the rarity of intermediates! This argument may have been convincing in Darwin"s day, although Darwin"s paleontological opponents like Richard Owen, Louis Agassiz and Adam Sedgwick, didn"t buy it, when there were only a small number of fossils that were known. But today we have fossilized representatives of every living animal phylum and every plant division. There are many phyla that have fossilized representatives of every living group or class. We have pointed out before that 97.7% of living orders of land vertebrates are represented as fossils and 79.1% of living families of land vertebrates"87.8% if birds are excluded, as they are less likely to become fossilized (see The links are missing). With so many forms accounted for, there doesn"t seem to be much room for transitional forms to do their work.

What evolutionists should say instead is that fossilization events are rare in processes occurring today. That should lead them to realize that fossils are mostly the result of an extra-ordinary event"such as a globe-covering flood that buried lots of creatures very fast, and prevented them from decomposing or being scavenged as today. See for example Hundreds of jellyfish fossils!"Darwin claimed, due to his faulty uniformitarian views, "No organism wholly soft can be preserved."

Did you know when you reproduce stuff en masse without acknowledgement, it's called plagiarism? No, didn't think so. Oh, but please tell me the source of the above, I've just got to know where you stole it from - this is the best ammunition I've had in a while.
Ethang5: Children cannot be morons.
Skeptical1: The only thing you have demonstrated is they don't have a monopoly on it.
Skeptical1
Posts: 1,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:03:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2016 11:27:31 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:24:34 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:15:17 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?
Most quotes were prior to the 1990s which is when the need for transitional fossils cause evolutionist to call everything a transition as long as it fit in between strata where one animal fossil was separated from another.
http://home.apu.edu...
2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

Questions Evos don't like....I have plenty
SCIENCE INVOLVES EXPERIMENTING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW THINGS WORK; HOW THEY
OPERATE. WHY IS EVOLUTION, A THEORY ABOUT
HISTORY, TAUGHT AS IF IT IS THE SAME AS THIS
OPERATIONAL SCIENCE?
You cannot do experiments, or even observe what
happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed,
Richard Dawkins said, "Evolution has been observed. It"s
just that it hasn"t been observed while it"s happening." LkFAO Dick Dawkins not very bright.
. WHY IS A FUNDAMENTALLY RELIGIOUS
IDEA, A DOGMATIC BELIEF SYSTEM THAT FAILS
TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE, TAUGHT IN SCIENCE
CLASSES?
Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said
"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a
metaphysical [religious] research programme ...." Michael
Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, "Evolution
is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning,
and it is true of evolution still today." If "you can"t teach
religion in science classes", why is evolution taught?

THE ATHEISTS TRANSITIONAL MANTRA WHAT A JOKE......
(Answers are the groveling of the typical atheist)

Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?

Answer 1: They aren"t missing. Every fossil ever found is a link between older and newer forms.

Rebuttal: This is assumed, not demonstrated. It is also patently absurd, as, numerically, the majority of fossils fit neatly into previously-described species (many of them documented in Living Fossils). It also obfuscates the real problem. Even on a species-by-species basis, transitional forms are the exception to the rule. There are only a handful of fossils claimed to be transitional between major groups of life. This was recognized by Darwin himself as a huge problem for his theory. And this handful of disputed fossils is different from the disputed handful of the past. For example, the coelacanth fish was presented by evolutionists as "the ancestor" of tetrapods (four-legged animals) for many years. It is no longer considered as such by evolutionary paleontologists, although it is still in many school textbooks. See: Famous Living Fossil "Link" Idea Fizzles Further.

There are only a handful of fossils claimed to be transitional between major groups of life.

Answer 2: Only a small fraction of animals are fossilized, the fossil record still remains largely incomplete.

Rebuttal: This begs the question, because the "evidence" that the fossil record is incomplete is the rarity of intermediates! This argument may have been convincing in Darwin"s day, although Darwin"s paleontological opponents like Richard Owen, Louis Agassiz and Adam Sedgwick, didn"t buy it, when there were only a small number of fossils that were known. But today we have fossilized representatives of every living animal phylum and every plant division. There are many phyla that have fossilized representatives of every living group or class. We have pointed out before that 97.7% of living orders of land vertebrates are represented as fossils and 79.1% of living families of land vertebrates"87.8% if birds are excluded, as they are less likely to become fossilized (see The links are missing). With so many forms accounted for, there doesn"t seem to be much room for transitional forms to do their work.

What evolutionists should say instead is that fossilization events are rare in processes occurring today. That should lead them to realize that fossils are mostly the result of an extra-ordinary event"such as a globe-covering flood that buried lots of creatures very fast, and prevented them from decomposing or being scavenged as today. See for example Hundreds of jellyfish fossils!"Darwin claimed, due to his faulty uniformitarian views, "No organism wholly soft can be preserved."

Had a heavy weekend, did we?
Ethang5: Children cannot be morons.
Skeptical1: The only thing you have demonstrated is they don't have a monopoly on it.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 8:20:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2016 12:03:39 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 11:27:31 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:24:34 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:15:17 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?
Most quotes were prior to the 1990s which is when the need for transitional fossils cause evolutionist to call everything a transition as long as it fit in between strata where one animal fossil was separated from another.
http://home.apu.edu...
2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

Questions Evos don't like....I have plenty
SCIENCE INVOLVES EXPERIMENTING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW THINGS WORK; HOW THEY
OPERATE. WHY IS EVOLUTION, A THEORY ABOUT
HISTORY, TAUGHT AS IF IT IS THE SAME AS THIS
OPERATIONAL SCIENCE?
You cannot do experiments, or even observe what
happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed,
Richard Dawkins said, "Evolution has been observed. It"s
just that it hasn"t been observed while it"s happening." LkFAO Dick Dawkins not very bright.
. WHY IS A FUNDAMENTALLY RELIGIOUS
IDEA, A DOGMATIC BELIEF SYSTEM THAT FAILS
TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE, TAUGHT IN SCIENCE
CLASSES?
Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said
"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a
metaphysical [religious] research programme ...." Michael
Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, "Evolution
is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning,
and it is true of evolution still today." If "you can"t teach
religion in science classes", why is evolution taught?

THE ATHEISTS TRANSITIONAL MANTRA WHAT A JOKE......
(Answers are the groveling of the typical atheist)

You're peer reviewed bulllllshhhhiiiiittttttt, in the toilet
Your knowledge of the worldwide fossil record is a joke. Stop looking in a museum. Read some books.
Your inability to confront a PhD in nuclear chemistry and post it to demonstrate your immense lack of knowledge of Dating techniques was telling.
You are an atheist joke.
this site is dead. It doesn't even correctly post replies..
Skeptical1
Posts: 1,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 8:59:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2016 8:20:14 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:03:39 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 11:27:31 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:24:34 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:15:17 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?
Most quotes were prior to the 1990s which is when the need for transitional fossils cause evolutionist to call everything a transition as long as it fit in between strata where one animal fossil was separated from another.
http://home.apu.edu...
2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?

3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

Well, we know that hundreds of books have been written based around these three insurmountable contradictions of Darwin's fairy tale (you've probably seen them mentioned in these very threads), but few people know that all of these rebuttals originally came from the one source. I think it's time we acknowledged the genius behind all of these evolution killers, but first let's look at three direct quotes from the source:

Questions Evos don't like....I have plenty
SCIENCE INVOLVES EXPERIMENTING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW THINGS WORK; HOW THEY
OPERATE. WHY IS EVOLUTION, A THEORY ABOUT
HISTORY, TAUGHT AS IF IT IS THE SAME AS THIS
OPERATIONAL SCIENCE?
You cannot do experiments, or even observe what
happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed,
Richard Dawkins said, "Evolution has been observed. It"s
just that it hasn"t been observed while it"s happening." LkFAO Dick Dawkins not very bright.
. WHY IS A FUNDAMENTALLY RELIGIOUS
IDEA, A DOGMATIC BELIEF SYSTEM THAT FAILS
TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE, TAUGHT IN SCIENCE
CLASSES?
Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said
"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a
metaphysical [religious] research programme ...." Michael
Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, "Evolution
is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning,
and it is true of evolution still today." If "you can"t teach
religion in science classes", why is evolution taught?

THE ATHEISTS TRANSITIONAL MANTRA WHAT A JOKE......
(Answers are the groveling of the typical atheist)

You're peer reviewed bulllllshhhhiiiiittttttt, in the toilet
Your knowledge of the worldwide fossil record is a joke. Stop looking in a museum. Read some books.
Your inability to confront a PhD in nuclear chemistry and post it to demonstrate your immense lack of knowledge of Dating techniques was telling.
You are an atheist joke.

I could take a razor blade and carve "Behe is a twat" across my chest. I choose not to, because to do so would be pointless and painful. As would arguing with a bunch of people who have expanded scientific knowledge not one single iota (I will post something on this shortly). Their claims have been debunked over and over, ad nauseum, but they just keep throwing the same discredited rubbish back in the ring.

The same opportunity has been offered to you, but I've yet to see the transcript of how you got on. At least I demonstrate some understanding (albeit just a layman's non-expert appreciation) of the issues involved. The only thing you have ever demonstrated on here is the ability to cut and paste reams of rubbish arguments you clearly cannot understand, and most probably haven't even read. That much is obvious, otherwise you wouldn't be quoting your genius PhD friends, who quote in support of their case Owen - a discredited fraud, whose assertions about ape/human brain comparisons are a standing joke. But like you, they wouldn't know that, because they don't check their sources any better than you.
Ethang5: Children cannot be morons.
Skeptical1: The only thing you have demonstrated is they don't have a monopoly on it.
distraff
Posts: 1,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 9:44:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am confused. I thought you were an evolutionist. Oh, well, I will respond to your three arguments even if you are playing devil's advocate.

At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

Refuted a long time ago by talkorigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Just see Wikipedia with a good long list:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?
3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

There are several counter-arguments:
1: We have seen many examples of complex things evolve. E.g. nylon resistance and multicellularity in bacteria. If this argument was right you shouldn't see them evolve.
2: There are many possible pathways to get a new ability and some may not work like half-wings and half-arms but that doesn't mean all of them doesn't work. Some animals have a skin umbrella under their arms use this to glide and reduce their fall. We see non-flying dinosaurs with normal arms with feathers. So the transitional could have been gliders with feathers. They could have then slowly evolved more bird traits to improve their gliding. Just because you can't think of a pathway doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
3: Some use this argument to argue that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved because it is a complex motor and a shaft with 60 parts. Yet we find bacteria with just some of the parts used to discrete waste. We also see humans with complex blood clotting systems and this is claimed to have no possible transitions. Yet we see fish with only a subset of these because clotting in water is different. We see animals with transitonal eyes like light sensitive tissue or light sensitive tissue in eye sockets. So half-way structures can exist if they are used for different purposes or in different animals or environments.
4: Our ancestors didn't need all the organs we do. For example bacteria don't need a heart. So the animals that evolved a heart would be fine without it, so a half-functional heart was ok, and helped them but the lack of a fully functional heart was not fatal. In short we don't need full functionality for them to evolve, just partial functionality.

Did I prove that evolution can produce the complexity in life? No. I just presented some reasons to believe that it might be possible, which refutes your argument that it is impossible.
Skeptical1
Posts: 1,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 9:57:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2016 9:44:20 PM, distraff wrote:
I am confused. I thought you were an evolutionist. Oh, well, I will respond to your three arguments even if you are playing devil's advocate.

At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
Anyone who has read any creation science literature regarding the theory of evolution by natural selection will know that there are three "argument killers" that conclusively demonstrate Darwin got it completely wrong. These are:

1.The lack of transitional forms. If species evolved gradually into other species, why do we not find transitional forms everywhere?

Refuted a long time ago by talkorigins:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Just see Wikipedia with a good long list:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

2.Survival of transitional species. An animal with half-arms and half wings can't hold anything, and can't fly. How will it survive?
3.Organs of extreme perfection and complication. For example, eyes don't just "spring" into being. But what use is a bit of an eye?

There are several counter-arguments:
1: We have seen many examples of complex things evolve. E.g. nylon resistance and multicellularity in bacteria. If this argument was right you shouldn't see them evolve.
2: There are many possible pathways to get a new ability and some may not work like half-wings and half-arms but that doesn't mean all of them doesn't work. Some animals have a skin umbrella under their arms use this to glide and reduce their fall. We see non-flying dinosaurs with normal arms with feathers. So the transitional could have been gliders with feathers. They could have then slowly evolved more bird traits to improve their gliding. Just because you can't think of a pathway doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
3: Some use this argument to argue that the bacterial flagellum could not have evolved because it is a complex motor and a shaft with 60 parts. Yet we find bacteria with just some of the parts used to discrete waste. We also see humans with complex blood clotting systems and this is claimed to have no possible transitions. Yet we see fish with only a subset of these because clotting in water is different. We see animals with transitonal eyes like light sensitive tissue or light sensitive tissue in eye sockets. So half-way structures can exist if they are used for different purposes or in different animals or environments.
4: Our ancestors didn't need all the organs we do. For example bacteria don't need a heart. So the animals that evolved a heart would be fine without it, so a half-functional heart was ok, and helped them but the lack of a fully functional heart was not fatal. In short we don't need full functionality for them to evolve, just partial functionality.

Did I prove that evolution can produce the complexity in life? No. I just presented some reasons to believe that it might be possible, which refutes your argument that it is impossible.

I am an evolutionist. You fell foul of a rather dishonest trick by one of the "God did it" crowd, who cut off the bottom 2/3 of my post - not surprising. I'd recommend you go back to the OP and read it in full. Your supporting arguments are all sound :)
Ethang5: Children cannot be morons.
Skeptical1: The only thing you have demonstrated is they don't have a monopoly on it.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,696
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2016 4:42:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/6/2016 8:59:57 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 8:20:14 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:03:39 PM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 11:27:31 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:24:34 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:15:17 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 11/4/2016 4:05:12 AM, Skeptical1 wrote:


Your peer reviewed bulllllshhhhiiiiittttttt, in the toilet
Your knowledge of the worldwide fossil record is a joke. Stop looking in a museum. Read some books.
Your inability to confront a PhD in nuclear chemistry and post it to demonstrate your immense lack of knowledge of Dating techniques was telling.
You are an atheist joke.

Evolutionists disprove evolutionists claims via experimentation, you know scientific modeling that makes the evos get their panties in a wad as usual. They defeat their own delusions.
Just an except.....the whole article and evos referenced on link.

Footprints and sand "dunes" in a Grand Canyon sandstone!

by Andrew A. Snelling and Steven A. Austin

"There is no sight on earth which matches Grand Canyon. There are other canyons, other mountains and other rivers, but this Canyon excels all in scenic grandeur. Can any visitor, upon viewing Grand Canyon, grasp and appreciate the spectacle spread before him? The ornate sculpture work and the wealth of color are like no other landscape. They suggest an alien world. The scale is too outrageous. The sheer size and majesty engulf the intruder, surpassing his ability to take it in."

....Anyone who has stood on the rim and looked down into Grand Canyon would readily echo these words as one"s breath is taken away with the sheer magnitude of the spectacle. The Canyon stretches for 446 km (277 miles) through northern Arizona, attains a depth of more than 1.6 km (1 mile), and ranges from 6.4 km (4 miles) to 29 km (18 miles) in width. In the walls of the Canyon can be seen flat-lying rock layers that were once sand, mud or lime. Now hardened, they look like pages of a giant book as they stretch uniformly right through the Canyon and underneath the plateau country to the north and south and deeper to the east.

The Coconino Sandstone

To begin to comprehend the awesome scale of these rock layers, we can choose any one for detailed examination. Perhaps the easiest of these rock layers to spot, since it readily catches the eye, is a thick, pale buff coloured to almost white sandstone near the top of the Canyon walls. Geologists have given the different rock layers names, and this one is called the Coconino Sandstone (see Figures 1 and 2). It is estimated to have an average thickness of 96 m (315 ft) and, with equivalent sandstones to the east, covers an area of about 519 sq km (200,000 sq miles).2 That is an area more than twice the size of the Australian State of Victoria, or almost twice the area of the US State of Colorado! Thus the volume of this sandstone is conservatively estimated at 41,700 cu km (10,000 cu miles). That"s a lot of sand!

What do these rock layers in Grand Canyon mean? What do they tell us about the earth"s past? For example, how did all the sand in this Coconino Sandstone layer and its equivalents get to where it is today?

To answer these questions geologists study the features within rock layers like the Coconino Sandstone, and even the sand grains themselves. An easily noticed feature of the Coconino Sandstone is the distinct cross layers of sand within it called cross beds.

For many years evolutionary geologists have interpreted these cross beds by comparing them with currently forming sand deposits " the sand dunes in deserts which are dominated by sand grains made up of the mineral quartz, and which have inclined internal sand beds. Thus it has been proposed that the Coconino Sandstone accumulated over thousands and thousands of years in an immense windy desert by migrating sand dunes, the cross beds forming on the down-wind sides of the dunes as sand was deposited there.3

The Coconino Sandstone is also noted for the large number of fossilized footprints, usually in sequences called trackways. These appear to have been made by four-footed vertebrates moving across the original sand surfaces ). These fossil footprint trackways were compared to the tracks made by reptiles on desert sand dunes,4 so it was then assumed that these fossilized footprints in the Coconino Sandstone must have been made in dry desert sands which were then covered up by wind-blown sand, subsequent cementation forming the sandstone and fossilizing the prints.

Yet another feature that evolutionary geologists have used to argue that the Coconino Sandstone represents the remains of a long period of dry desert conditions is the sand grains themselves. Geologists have studied the sand grains from modern desert dunes and under the microscope they often show pitted or frosted surfaces. Similar grain surface textures have also been observed in sandstone layers containing very thick cross beds such as the Coconino Sandstone, so again this comparison has strengthened the belief that the Coconino Sandstone was deposited as dunes in a desert.

Continued for the full scientific explanation and references to experimentation.
http://creation.com...
this site is dead. It doesn't even correctly post replies..

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.