Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Still waiting for you to show us all you know what evolution is and how it works.
How long is this gonna take?
All I can say for sure, is that evolution is more about nonsense than science, and it can be refuted on a number of levels. How it works is still not fully understood even by those who actually believe in the theory. And another problem, the theory changes from generation to generation. They said there are missing links, now they say there is no such thing as a missing link. They said there is a tree of life, now they say it is a bush of life. They say they have evidence that proves evolution, yet Henery Gee suggest there is no such evidence. How long is it gonna take? How long will it take before believers in evolution can get their story straight?
All I can say for sure, is that evolution is more about nonsense than science, and it can be refuted on a number of levels. How it works is still not fully understood even by those who actually believe in the theory. And another problem, the theory changes from generation to generation. They said there are missing links, now they say there is no such thing as a missing link. They said there is a tree of life, now they say it is a bush of life. They say they have evidence that proves evolution, yet Henery Gee suggest there is no such evidence. How long is it gonna take? How long will it take before believers in evolution can get their story straight?
Okay, let's narrow things down a bit then. What happens when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?
and why don't you choose to believe all the millions of other scientist who accept evolution as a fact?
First of all your link is to a creationist website and none of them have any credibility. Yes, sometimes the positions of fossils can be found in unexpected places and there's a logical explanation for it. Human activity such as mining, excavating dirt for highways or any sort of construction project, digging wells, or any one of countless ways in which we alter the landscape can easily lead to a plant or animal ending up in much older strata. Miners have died when the walls and ceiling caved in and found many years later. Natural processes can also occur from flooding, erosion, having the strata buckle up and flip over, etc. It's only natural that there will be an occasional fossil that will be dug up due to any one of these explanations.
Consider this very simple and easy to understand fact. IF ALL PLANTS AND ANIMALS HAD COEXISTED IN ONE TIME PERIOD THEIR FOSSILS WOULD BE INTERMIXED ALL OVER THE WORLD! Think about that for a minute. They're not intermixed but are found in distinct layers that can be dated. The fact that a fossil found in an unexpected layer of strata is such a rare event that you have a creationist website trying to list them actually makes your case weaker.
Of course this is just another way you can (FILTER) out evidence. Just brand all creation sites as sites with no credibility. And by doing so you can ignore everything they say, and pretend it all lies. This is a very dishonest way to ignore evidence that does not agree with your position.
(I've done this one before, but apparently it bears repeating for the children in the audience, those who still cling to their Sunday School comics about the flood and Evolution).
(Oh, and this part only covers reproductive ecology, not post-flood accomodation or any of the other vast problems that the Noah-tic model requires. But enough preparation; let's get to the simple mathematical meat of it.
As always, I welcome constructive cricism, not nonsense drivellized back-chat from uneducated morons. you know who you are, of course...)
Arkian Mathematics
1. number of KNOWN, counted and acknowledged species on this planet at the present time: 30 Million +
2. number of ESTIMATED species expected to yet be discovered, or that may never be discovered (organisms at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, for example...): 3 to 5 Million more.
2a: number of species known to have gone extinct so far: 5 Million.
3. number that diversified by Evolution after Noah's flood: none. No Evolvin' allowed!
4. number of any species pair required to successfully reproduce with a net positive population growth number underidealconditions(i.e.: that doesn't go extinct), given various and typical ecological stresses. The number ranges from an absolute low of 20 pairs, up to the more usual 70 pairs, or with sensitive species requiring very unique conditions, up to 200 PAIRS.*
5. Grade Two math class: an est. 35 Million types of species, X two per species X (let's just say, a nice conservative number of 50 pairs of each, to help the Creationist argument as well as we reasonably can...) =
Anyone? anyone?
3 BILLION, 500 MILLION. Species. On the Ark.
So. Tell me which point number, above, is categorically wrong, and by how much, so as to allow for the (widely disparate) number quoted from an inerrant bible number of Noah's species quoted on Creationist sites, (they range from 3500 animals [laughable] to 40,000 [still laughable])
40,000 animals? divided by two per type (yah gotta have two, now don't you, Tom and YSM?) = only 20,000 unique species.
There's that many species of moths and ants and bees alone. Not counting the necessary "two per".
Huh? What gives?
Show me where I'm oh-so-very wrong. I dare you.
____________________
*Actual case histories of ecological disaster stories due to insufficient breeding stocks: A: California Condor: look it up; the point in their population decline when the biologists collected them all (I know the head of this project personally...).
(I'll tell you, Tom, since I know you won't do this yourself out of abject terror: 50 condors, and they were very concerned with that too-low number). The Condors have barely survived, despite significant protection and assistance from man for the past 25 years! Did the dis-embarking T-Rexs have such assistance? The polar bears? All the rest?
B: Kaibab Plateau (look it up); the deer there first over-populated when ranchers shot all of their predators, and then when their total population fell to less than about 150 males & females, they rather quickly wentexctinct on that famous plateau. Oooopps!
So. We turn two deer, two giraffes, two penquins, two monkies, two T-Rexs, etc. etc. loose in the "fertile, warm, dry, well-vegetated post-catastrophic-flood summit, 15,000 feet elevation" of Mt. Ararat, tell them to wait until the Earth re-vegetates in, oh, ten years or more (*see Mt. St. Helen's revegetation times), from, oddly, no remnant viable seed stock, and tell 'em to find their own way home, in cute, cuddly pairs. All while breeding up a storm, BTW.
I'd love to hear how this is plausible to you Creationists. Really. Honestly. Show me where my biased, arrogant basic ecology training was all wrong.
But please: no Creationist Website links. I want to see if you have even an ounce of logical intelligence in your ownheads as you think this through..
Do you also agree with one of Darwins basic ideas that state that the European race, following the inevitable laws of natural selection, will emerge as the distinct species, human being, and all the transitional forms-such as the gorilla, chimpanzee, Negro, ect. will be extinct? As stated by Benjamin Wiker.
No I don't agree with it, because...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
You have spent a part of your life following a racist, who pretended to be a man of science.
I don't "follow" Darwin! Darwin was vague and sometimes even incorrect about some details, because (as he admits in his work many times) he only had so much information to work with at the time. This is why the theory itself has evolved over time: Because new information has given us a greater understanding of how evolution works. This is how science in general works, of which you also seem to have no working knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
All I can say for sure, is that evolution is more about nonsense than science, and it can be refuted on a number of levels.
How can you say it's nonsense when you don't even understand it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
How it works is still not fully understood even by those who actually believe in the theory.
And you know this because you fully understand it? Obviously not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
And another problem, the theory changes from generation to generation. They said there are missing links, now they say there is no such thing as a missing link. They said there is a tree of life, now they say it is a bush of life. They say they have evidence that proves evolution, yet Henery Gee suggest there is no such evidence. How long is it gonna take? How long will it take before believers in evolution can get their story straight?
It's not "getting a story straight". You seem to think that there is a tiny handful of non-Christian scientists who sit around in a room making wild guesses out of complete randomness, with the sole purpose of discrediting the Bible. You haven't even a basic understanding of how science in general works, and you certainly don't understand evolution. I have no doubt that you know the Bible very well, yet in this matter you are well beyond your scope of knowledge, and it's extremely obvious to anyone but you.
Of course this is just another way you can (FILTER) out evidence. Just brand all creation sites as sites with no credibility. And by doing so you can ignore everything they say, and pretend it all lies. This is a very dishonest way to ignore evidence that does not agree with your position.
The Museum of Forbidden Archeology (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_forbiddenarcheology04.htm - broken link)
And yet, you yourself have yet to reply to the vast majority of requests for clarification and justifcation that have been posted in this thread.
Kettle, there's a letter here, from a Mr. Pot....something about your color...?
All I can say for sure, is that evolution is more about nonsense than science, and it can be refuted on a number of levels.
Nope. Your saying so means nothing at this point, to anyone here, even some of the Christians wo have walked away. Your history is one of relentless blurting out of mis-quoted information, hoaxes and lies.
How it works is still not fully understood even by those who actually believe in the theory.
We also do not yet fully understand gravity. But, I don't suggest you challenge it, Tom, and walk off the edge of a 50-story building. Because, frankly, it's a fact. Just like Evolution.
(But, BTW, unlike gravity, we pretty much do fully understand how Evolution does work at this point in time. It's just you who admits to knowing NOTHING about it, (or science in general) and yet you dare to criticise it.
And another problem, the theory changes from generation to generation.
As many have said, over and over, "improvements" do constitute change, yep. We also now know how to build safer, better tires for your car as well, Tom. That make the idea of tires stupid? You want to try driving without them? Now THAT would be "stoopit". As is your irrational statement above.
They said there are missing links, now they say there is no such thing as a missing link.
Again, a resounding Nope. Your link in fact said that thisparticular find is not "The Missing Link". Frankly we now have so many traceable transitionals that, in fact, we no longer need to find such a thing as a "missing link". BTW, you're also a "transitional" because Evolution does not sleep.
Creationists love to (need to?) harp on very old ideas, don't they? The whole Missing Link thing was around at the turn of the 19th century. That where your thinking and knowledge of this world is stuck, Tom?
They said there is a tree of life, now they say it is a bush of life.
Grasping at straws, as usual. Irrelevant. How long did you struggle to come up with that bit of nonsense?
They say they have evidence that proves evolution, yet Henery Gee suggest there is no such evidence. How long is it gonna take? How long will it take before believers in evolution can get their story straight?
(BTW: read more carefully: It's Henry, not Henery!) You haven't actually read any of Henry's stuff, now have you, Tom? You just pulled some blather from the usual Creationist Website bilge-water tub. I won't bother to do it for you because you're a known hardcore intransigent.
But... to the rest of the audience...
Suffice to say, Tom's Henry Gee does not refute Evolution in any way, but he wrote reliably about dinos in the Mezozoic Era. You remember that one, Tom; far before 6036.5 years ago?
In fact, Henry is an accredited and well-published Evolutionary biologist, who coincidentally wrote:
"Gee Responds to Discovery Institute Use of Quotations (http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3167_pr90_10152001__gee_responds_10_15_2001.asp - broken link)" (html). National Center for Science Education. 15 October2001.
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3167_pr90_10152001__gee_responds_10_15_2001.asp (broken link). "The Discovery Institute’s Viewers Guide to the PBS “Evolution” series… attempts to discredit the scientific implications of the human fossil record by quoting (on pages 11, 40, 47, 88, and 111), etc. etc.
In other words, he caught the Discovery Institute* red-handed, in their purposeful and fraudulent quote-mining in a blatant effort to discredit Evolution.
i.e.: Lying for Jesus.
Too bad these Creationist websites have absolutely nothing credible, ever. Also too bad they have a virtual iron-grasp on the unthinking minds of the Hive-Heads out there who are too frightened to learn about the world around them.
Tom, if you're going to purposefully quote-mine to make some important point, you really oughta check first for the possibility that your link will make you look like an insufferable illiterate mutt-mind!
_____________________________
RE:: The credibility of The Discovery Institute
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Basic Math & Ecology 001
Darwin was vague and sometimes even incorrect about some details, because (as he admits in his work many times) he only had so much information to work with at the time. This is why the theory itself has evolved over time: Because new information has given us a greater understanding of how evolution works. This is how science in general works, of which you also seem to have no working knowledge.
WWJD? Lie?
about the world around them. 
