Evolution thread.

My blood pressure spikes when I read lies. Please don't insult me by using an obviously biased site. I wouldn't use the equivalent in an argument. If nothing else, it's a wiki, not a real source. I

All families didn't have to evolved into something else. Families can (and often do) die off. T. rex's descendents have died off, from my readings on the subject (The genus Tyrannosaurus was one of the last of Family Tyrannosauridae). Also, science doesn't deal in proof.

Do you have a few years? Please, answer me, how much have you studied about the fossil record and zoology? How long past high school? If you haven't studied it past high school, frankly, you don't have enough knowledge base for me to explain it on a message board.

Because there are limits to the gene pool.[/quote]

What do you mean? Do you think larger animals have less genes than do microbes?

It can hide. Can mice defend themselves from meat eaters? There are a lot of different strategies that animals can use.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Thousands-of-stray-Chihuahuas-roam-Bay-Area-5768179.php

 

How are they creationist lies? Be specific. Also if you posted stuff from talk origins then I would counter the points being made. Suppose I told you to stop posting evolutionist lies?

I do that as a definition. I believe that the earth is roughly 6000 years old. I don't think you can get anymore accurate than that.

Yes, the biological term for family.

 

Well I'm not getting the other side by a nationally recognized source if that's what you're asking for. Be specific, what lie did they told and why it's a lie?

You should get my drift. But to use a more correct term you can't give evidence that the fossil turned into something else.


[QUOTE
Do you have a few years? Please, answer me, how much have you studied about the fossil record and zoology? How long past high school? If you haven't studied it past high school, frankly, you don't have enough knowledge base for me to explain it on a message board. [/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter if I'm a drop out from kindergarten. If I'm speaking the truth I'm speaking the truth.



Because there are limits to the gene pool.[/quote]

For example, a cheetah is at or near the far end of the gene pool. It can't change any more than it already had for the most part.

It doesn't have the fur or perfect size to hide nor the instinct for the most part. It may hide in the bushes but not much from that. Are you arguing that natural selection will pick the chihuahua over some other breeds?

 

I have respect for my audience. I wouldn't post an obvious propaganda wiki as a relevant source. If you called me out of talk.origins, I would agree with you. The difference is that I haven't seen any lies in evolutionist literature. I have seen lies in creationist literature that OTHER creationists have labeled as lies.

Then you don't beleive in the Bible, do you? It's pretty clear as to the 4004 BC. Stop waffling with the 10,000 years.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't matter if I'm a drop out from kindergarten. If I'm speaking the truth I'm speaking the truth.



Because there are limits to the gene pool.[/quote]


For example, a cheetah is at or near the far end of the gene pool. It can't change any more than it already had for the most part.





It doesn't have the fur or perfect size to hide nor the instinct for the most part. It may hide in the bushes but not much from that. Are you arguing that natural selection will pick the chihuahua over some other breeds?[/QUOTE]

Please clean up the quotes. I will reply tomorrow.

 

Macro evolution has been directly witnessed. Dawkins talks about it in his book "The Greatest Show on Earth". Feel free to pick it up.

 

YEC will move the goalposts if you can show macro evolution occurring.

Oh, it's not about speciation, it's about the next level up. Oh, you can show that, I meant the next level up, on so on and so on.

- - - Updated - - -

And that's where you show you don't understand evolution. Evolution isn't about something suddenly having offspring of another species. Evolution occurs in populations, not in individuals.

- - - Updated - - -

It's obvious that you've never read anything from an actual scientist. You obviously get all of your evolution knowledge from creationists.

- - - Updated - - -

Why has a single fossil never been found out of place? We don't find fossil rabbits in the preCambrian.

 

You seriously cannot see the implications in this?

Oh well...have fun with you little thread.

 

I think we're getting into the territory of willful ignorance where someone won't allow themselves to see the evidence because of the unfounded beliefs that they already hold. Makes you wonder if he thinks the computer he's using works by praying at it.

 

https://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/questions-answers.cfm?know=a24

 

I don't move the goal post. Show me anything that change from one family into the other.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm fully aware of that. You're smart enough to know that I'm not talking about my dog spot turning into paint the horse. You have to show me that macro evolution happens.
- - - Updated - - -

I get plenty of stuff from scientist. This isn't the first time I got into a debate like this.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh I beg to differ. I'll give you a link in the next update.

Here's a link.

http://detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html

 

What implications am I missing?

- - - Updated - - -

Prove me wrong instead of lowering yourself to insults.

 

From your link:

So what matters the most is that the rocks date the fossils, not any radiometric dating methods.

And how do you know the age of the rock?

Layers in fast moving water can be made quickly.

How do they know the dating methods are correct?

So in others words we know the date of a fossil because of the rock layer which is correct because of radiometric dating which is correct because...?

 

It might be useful to explain to us why you are a YEC. I know many bible believers that are OECs (Old earth creationists) and TEs (theistic evolutionists). They have a different interpretation of the same bible you use.

As far as the validity of macro evolution, you would have to understand the evidence and why it validates the theory. I'm not convinced you understand it. It took the work of thousands of scientists in various fields (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, ect..) to validate the age of the earth and universe and the theory of evolution. Don't insult their efforts by assuming you know enough to dismiss their conclusions unless you educate yourself on the data and their methods.

 

Because scientists hypothesize, test, experiment, retest, etc. And they update methods as they discover new ways of doing things, new ways of thinking about things, and they challenge theories to try to prove them wrong. Since you haven't invalidated anything yet, how about proposing your point of view and what supports it?

 

How can one argue with somebody who disbelieves such simple scientific facts as the speed of light or the sciences of archeology, nuclear physics, anthropology, cosmology, mathematics, biochemistry, etc. etc.?

I was once told it is futile to argue with those who possess blind faith, those who are crazy and those who are stupid, if your objective is change their minds.

All YECs possess blind faith, if not the other two attributes. Personally I consider them to be flat earthers in a different guise.

 

As a YEC, how do you explain how light from a galaxy 100,000,000 light years away could already be getting to Earth if it only existed 6,000 years ago? I'll let you think about that while I address macro vs. micro evolution.

There is NO difference between micro and macro evolution except for the time frame.

Say you have a small car and every day you randomly add or remove parts to it then drive it around see if the car works. If it doesn't you fix it, but if the car drives ok, you keep it the changes. Then the climate changes and your land turns into a muddy swamp and the car has a hard time driving, but you continue to randomly add and remove parts until one day you are able to traverse the swamp. At this point you notice that while you can see some similarities to the original car, but to looks very different. Then the climate changes again and instead of a swamp you end up on an island in the middle of a lake. You continue to make random changes until now you are able to traverse the lake, but then you realize that you don't even have a car any more, you have a boat.

Evolution works in a similar fashion. Random mutations in the genome cause changes which either increases an organism's chance of survival or decreases. If the organism survives, it passes those genes to its offspring. This continues to happen over millions of years until the decedents of the original organism are barely recognizable as the same and over a long enough time, the new organisms will be so different they can't even be classified in the same family but we can follow the progress through fossils.

I hope this sheds some light on the issue.

 

I think you missed the point of there being multiple methods for dating. These methods don't depend on each other. Instead, they can be used to check each other - like comparing the stories of several witnesses to an event.

I haven't read the full thread, so maybe it hasn't been noted that there are multiple methods of radiometric dating. Also, rock layers have been formed when earth's magnetic field was different than it is today. Thus age information can come from checking the magnetic polarity of the rock.

Also, there are reference layers such as from volcanoes or other events that extend over wide regions, making it possible to make correlations even if there were areas of rapidly forming layers.

 

One requires eyes to see, light is secondary.

 

If you're going to go with the whole YEC thingy, then you'll have to convince me that either light travels much, much, much slower than generally accepted by just about everybody on the planet, or your going to have to prove that Astrophysicists are terrible at calculating
the distance and movement of objects in space.

The light thing - good luck with that one. The astrophysicist thing - I've watched them calculate how to drop a probe on a moving astroid
hundreds of thousands of miles away - gonna take some serious work on your part.

Get back to us when you've worked that out.

 

When one thinks about it, and it doesn’t require all that much thought, the creationists’ claim that “micro can never become macro” is nothing more than rejecting the entire theory of evolution by arbitrarily asserting: “It ain’t so!”

Actually, it’s worse than that, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.
That denial is a an extreme form of Subjectivism. Or maybe it’s just an example of pre-scientific thinking, the kind that led our ancestors to conjecture that the visible sun was hauled across the sky by Apollo’s chariot, and then, when no one was looking, it was taken back to the barn or somewhere, from which the next day’s journey would commence.

 

Questions for Evolutionist.
​

1) What of atavisms? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism
Should their occurrence be regarded as a protected species? I first learned the word from Robert E. Howard.

2) Isn't protecting "Endangered Species", Anti Evolution?


Thank you Evolutionist.


Moi

r > g

View attachment 40498
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atavism
Atavism Happens!​

 

I'm a YEC because that's were the evidence leads. As far as from the Bible it makes the most sense that God created everything in six literal days.

I have the right to question their efforts if they're wrong. All those fields are valid, I can learn about the different rock layers and study the human body. It's just that they, I believe, are wrong when it comes to the age of the universe.

 

What supports the dates of radiometric dating is the fossils. It's a giant circle.

 

Then you are misreading the evidence. There is no evidence the earth or universe is young.

You have the right to question anything you want to. You even have the right to be wrong. That isn't the issue since no one is questioning your rights. Question away.

Yes but here's the problem: Scientists working in these fields are highly trained and educated in the data and methods of science to a much greater degree than the average person. If you want to be right about evolution and the age of the universe you have to know and understand the data and methods. I don't think you do. I don't think you are even aware of most of the data in question. Your level of knowledge on the subject is way to narrow for you to draw a valid conclusion. That's not intended to be an insult. All of us are in this category with respect a vast majority of subjects. What you need to do is acknowledge your ignorance (lack of knowledge) in this area and learn more about the subject.

 

So are you going to disprove any of my points?