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.
He made two attempts to date: the old Harun Yahya's "look at these animals who haven't changed at all for X million years!" argument, and the claim that soft tissues surviving fossilization overturns evolution. Or something.
I have seen the Islamic website and I thought they had some excellent VISIBLE evidence that biologtical evolution has never occurred on this planet. I could post their stuff here but I have better sources than that.
Evolution is fairy tale for adults who should know better. I intend to show that fact repeatedly.
Last edited by Calypsis4; 09-25-2009 at 03:43 PM..
Reason: correction
Have to go to bed now, and I'm busy tomorrow. I'll try to find time later to post something on the dating methods, because you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
(You still haven't explained how the relevant dating methods actually work BTW.)
In biology, evolution is the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
Tell me calypsis do you dispute that genetic material changes in a population of organism from one generation to the next. If not, then you accept evolution.
I have seen the Islamic website and I thought they had some excellent VISIBLE evidence that biologtical evolution has never occurred on this planet. I could post their stuff here but I have better sources than that.
Evolution is fairy tale for adults who should know better. I intend to show that fact repeatedly.
I am not interested in what 'sanspeur' says. He/she started off by 'welcoming' me to this board by saying that those who think hold differing views than his were 'stupid'.
Any one ever notice it is not scientists who work over time to disprove religion, it is religion that works overtime to disprove science. Who is scared of who? If your god is so powerful why does he need these little tin foil hat people to run around and try to disprove what science has so clearly proven? At every turn like a little dog that does not know his place religion keeps nipping at the pant legs of science, and they accomplish little except giving those that believe in what ever it is that the bible thumpers preach with no more evidence than a 'because the bible says its so" to back up 2k year old myths of talking snakes, men made of mud and women of mud men’s rib bones. Men living in fish belly’s, walking on water and turning it into wine. The end of the world, and no toleration for anyone else that does not believe the same way they do. Then enter the Glenn Becks and Limbaugh’s of the world and the tea bagger movement that would just as soon lynch anyone who did not look like act like and believe in the same superstitions as they do. Jeeeeezzzzzz, a bunch of kooks leading a nuttier bunch of kooks. You don't see Scientists every sunday preaching how "religion has fallen by the way side" They really do not care about you or your religion except only to the extent that religion trys to force science to follow its stupid rules, like in stem cell research or in other regressive backward thinking. If heaven is so darned great I just wish they would all commit suicide and get there faster so we can have a real heaven here after these idiots are gone.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
What are you going to do if geologists dig up a well preserved T-Rex or Allosaurus with the remains of a human in its belly?
Well, I'll go on record right now and tell you if a find like that is made I'll eat my pickup truck. That is such a ridiculous question. Human remains or those of any modern animal have never been found in the same strata as dinosaurs. What really shoots down young earth creationism is the simple fact that there if all species had coexisted in one time period then we'd find their fossils intermixed in the same strata but we don't. Now I suppose you're going to explain to me how the drowning animals in Noah's flood somehow organized themselves as they were sinking so they would be found in different strata.
Gee, on the other hand, says that the fossil record is evidence for evolution. Why you keep "pointing out" that the man said something he didn't even after being corrected multiple times with direct quotes is a mystery to me. Are you just pretending to be a parody of the typical ignorant creationist to make real creationists look bad?
Remember this quote?
"Darwinian evolution by natural selection is a theory in the formal sense that it is a hypothesis that has been tested, repeatedly, and found to be consistent with all the evidence that we can throw at it. Much of this evidence, from the fossil record and from genetics, did not exist in Darwin’s time, and it is a testament to Darwin’s prescience and the elegance of his theory of evolution by natural selection that it has proved so robust, so all-encompassing, so right."
You should, since you spend so much time ignoring it. But then again, you won't find this quote on the creationist web pages you're plagiarizing from ... and we all know that a second hand edited version of an author's works are way more accurate than going directly to the source.
First, what you need to do. Is tell us when Gee made that statement. And second of all, we then must find out if Gee has changed his mind on the fossil record, or is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Because these quotes come from Gee, and are found in his book "In Search For Deep Time" Published in Feb. of 2001.
"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us, after the fact." "In Search For Deep Time" (2001) Page 113.
"The intervals of time that seperate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definte about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." "In Search For Deep Time" (2001) Page 23.
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." "In Search For Deep Time" (2001) Page 116-117.
"All the evidence for the hominid linege between about 5 and 10 million years ago--several thousand generations of living creatures--can be fitted into a small box." In Search For Deep Time (2001) Page 202.
"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretation." Nature July 12 (2001) Page 131.
And the reason I keep telling you that Gee said this, is because he did. And I have given you the title of his book, the year it was published, and the page number where you can find his statements on. So now you can read it for yourself. So please, don't come here suggesting Gee never wrote these words, because it is obvious, he did. And there are a number here who will say we have no need of the fossil record to support evolution. Yet we see, Gee's words have upset a number of you. And that's because the fossil record was considered a main pillar of proof for evolution. And that's the reason many are still in denial about Gee's words even now.
Last edited by Campbell34; 09-26-2009 at 07:22 AM..
First, what you need to do. Is tell us when Gee made that statement. And second of all, we then must find out if Gee has changed his mind on the fossil record, or is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Because these quotes come from Gee, and are found in his book
"In Search For Deep Time" Published in Feb. of 2001.
"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us, after the fact." "In Search For Deep Time" (2001) Page 113.
"The intervals of time that seperate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definte about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." "In Search For Deep Time" (2001) Page 23.
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." "In Search For Deep Time" (2001) Page 116-117.
"All the evidence for the hominid linege between about 5 and 10 million years ago--several thousand generations of living creatures--can be fitted into a small box." In Search For Deep Time (2001) Page 202.
"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretation." Nature July 12 (2001) Page 131.
And the reason I keep telling you that Gee said this, is because he did. And I have given you the title of his book, the year it was published, and the page number where you can find his statements on. So now you can read it for yourself. So please, don't come here suggesting Gee never wrote these words, because it is obvious, he did. And there are a number here who will say we have no need of the fossil record to support evolution. Yet we see, Gee's words have upset a number of you. And that's because the fossil record was considered a main pillar of proof for evolution. And that's the reason many are still in denial about Gee's words even now.
Again, it is impossible to prove a direct ancestral link without dna. But just as we can look at chimp bones, and understand that the similarities between them and human tell us that we are closely related, we can also apply morphological differences we find in the fossil records to understand the relationship between two species.
Gees own words state this very clearly. But your ignorance of the English language had lead you to believe that gee is saying something else.
"The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." "In Search For Deep Time" (2001) Page 23.
Again completely true. We can not talk about fossilized ancestry. Just as if I find bones of a human being, there is no way without DNAI would be able to tell if he was my ancestor.
But this does not mean, I can not know he is human.
"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us, after the fact." "In Search For Deep Time" (2001) Page 113.
Hes right, there is no way we can point out and individual fossil, and say it was killed by an asteroid. Hes right that we can not point out a individual fossil, and say it is part of our ancestry.
But we can know if one fossil is related to another fossil, just as we can look at a chimps bones, and compare it to our own, and know that we are related, base only on the morphological differences.
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story--amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific." "In Search For Deep Time" (2001) Page 116-117. Again he is right, we can not line up fossils and claim a lineage.
But we can know that these fossils are related to one another, just as humans are related to chimps.
"All the evidence for the hominid linege between about 5 and 10 million years ago--several thousand generations of living creatures--can be fitted into a small box." In Search For Deep Time (2001) Page 202. Gee contradicts himself here.
"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretation." Nature July 12 (2001) Page 131.
Not any more.
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.
