Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Orpheous99 · 01-03-2002, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by You Betcha:


The fossil evidence supports creation and not evolution.

How?

(I hate flood control.

)

Orpheous99 · 01-03-2002, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by You Betcha:b

There is evidence. All scientific evidence shows that anything with meaning and specific complexity comes from an intelligent being, and cannot form naturally. Therefore, a supernatural being created the unvierse and life as we know it.

What do you mean by meaning? Where does it show this? What scientific "evidence" are you using, from one of those cretinist "schools"?

There is no evidence that the universe formed on its own.

Who created god? If the universe can't be created on its own then your god can't be either.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-03-2002, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Nothing you have submitted shows how evolution is possible.

From what I can tell, all you have given us is adaptation in the same family of organisms.

Evolution isn't just "possible", we can see it happening. What you call "adaptation" is EVOLUTION.

Quote:

I am not interested in mutations that stay within the same family(humans) How about a mutation that changes an animal to another one?

Such an event would CONTRADICT evolution, which says that such things do not happen. Evolutionary changes are GRADUAL.

Quote:

If the universe and life did not evolve, then do you believe it was created?

Evolution says nothing at all about the otigin of the Universe or of life. This has been explained so many times now that you are obviously being deliberately stupid here. There are OTHER theories which cover these areas.

Quote:

What example can you give me that shows something with meaning and specific complexity can form naturally. Thanks.

The ongoing generation of new information shows how a complex organism can develop from a very simple one. The original is thought to have been a self-replicating polynucleotide simple enough to form randomly under early-Earth conditions (abiogenesis): from then on, given the inevitability of occasional copying errors (mutations), evolution becomes inevitable.

Quote:

God designed the building blocks for snowflakes to exist, along with the complex process which forms them.

This is the same thing as crystal formation. Crystals cannot form unless the complex structures exist to allow them to.

And many people believe this about DNA: that the Universe was created in a manner which makes life possible. That's why evolution and religion are not incompatible. The Book of Genesis, though, is a crock.

Quote:

Speciation is has nothing to do with macroevolution. Species are formed within the same family of animals.

"Micro" means "a little", "macro" means "a lot". Over millions of years, a lot of a little is a lot. This is obvious. A "family" of animals is a group which shares certain common features: it is an arbitrary man-made grouping, it has no other meaning. Dogs and wolves are part of a larger group which includes coyotes, and they're all part of a larger group which includes bears, and they're all part of a larger group which includes cats, and they're all part of a larger group which includes all mammals... and so it goes.

Quote:

Evolution can make anything fit, because it is a flexible theory that accomodates any circumstance that arises. Except the fact that macroevolution has not been observed.

Nope, evolution would be false if the fossil sequence didn't fit: it does.

Quote:

Creation is a valid science. It explains the observable phenomenon.

Evolution is not science when you talk about macroevolution, because it is not observed.

Creationism is false, because it does NOT explain the observable phenomena. And evolution has been observed.

Quote:

Creation makes predictions. If all creatures have the same creator, then their will be many similarities between them.

If all creatures have the same ANCESTOR, then there will be many similarities between them. So creationism makes no specific predictions about those similarities, whereas evolution does.

Quote:

Someone made up the conjecture that all living creatures today came from the same single living organism. To this day there is no observation of this, but because people want so badly to believe it they will force anything they can to fit the preconceived conjecture.

The falsehood of Genesis was discovered by Christians. And Darwin was a Christian who originally planned to become a minister.

Quote:

The fossil evidence supports creation and not evolution.

Nope, this is a creationist lie.

YouBetcha, the creationists are making this crap up. If you understood more about science, you'd know that. Creationism isn't science, it's an attempt by fundamentalist right-wing Christians to use fradulent claims to overthrow the First Amendment and introduce Taliban-style theocratic government in America. Check out Kent Hovind's rants against democracy sometime.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Jack the Bodiless ]

You Betcha · 01-03-2002, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Orpheous99:


How?

(I hate flood control.

)

Every creature appears suddenly fully formed. Turtles, which are prone to leave fossils show they are the same as they were thousands of years ago. The fact that there are billions of fossils shows that there was a massive flood that buried them all. The different strata shows they were layed down in a flood.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-03-2002, 06:58 AM

...sigh...

Quote:

Every creature appears suddenly fully formed.

FALSE. Humans don't, for instance: we evolved from apes. Do you seriously expect us to believe that you have never heard of fossil hominids, or ANY other transitional forms?

Quote:

Turtles, which are prone to leave fossils show they are the same as they were thousands of years ago.

Yes, some creatures are successful as they are. Darwin called them living fossils, their existence fits evolution perfectly.

Quote:

The fact that there are billions of fossils shows that there was a massive flood that buried them all. The different strata shows they were layed down in a flood.

It shows exactly the opposite: the Earth could not have supported so many creatures at one time, and the different strata show they were laid down over a long period of time.

You Betcha · 01-03-2002, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
...sigh...

It shows exactly the opposite: the Earth could not have supported so many creatures at one time, and the different strata show they were laid down over a long period of time.

That is your conjecture. The earth could hold all of those creatures at one time.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
FALSE. Humans don't, for instance: we evolved from apes. Do you seriously expect us to believe that you have never heard of fossil hominids, or ANY other transitional forms?

I have heard of them, however they are apes and not humans. Apes are apes, and humans are humans. There are no half apes, half humans.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
Yes, some creatures are successful as they are. Darwin called them living fossils, their existence fits evolution perfectly.

An animal that has never changed fits evolution perfectly? That's a new one. What was the transitional animal before the turtle?

Orpheous99 · 01-03-2002, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by You Betcha:


Every creature appears suddenly fully formed. Turtles, which are prone to leave fossils show they are the same as they were thousands of years ago. The fact that there are billions of fossils shows that there was a massive flood that buried them all. The different strata shows they were layed down in a flood.

You've got to be kidding? You are showing your complete ignorance about how evolution works and how the process of fossilization as well. Someone must have really warped you quite badly. Either that or you are a troll.

hezekiah jones · 01-03-2002, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by You Betcha:
What was the transitional animal before the turtle?

"You're very clever, young man, very clever, but it's turtles all the way down."

Jack the Bodiless · 01-03-2002, 07:36 AM

Quote:

That is your conjecture. The earth could hold all of those creatures at one time.

Not MY conjecture: the conjecture of paleontologists and biologists who actually know about such things.

Why do you believe that the Earth could hold all of those creatures at one time? Sure, you would like to believe that, but let's see the calculations, or tell us where you got that from.

Quote:

I have heard of them, however they are apes and not humans. Apes are apes, and humans are humans. There are no half apes, half humans.

Yes, there are. Even the creationists cannot agree on which should be classified as "manlike apes" or "apelike men". Where would you place Homo Habilis? Homo Ergaster? Homo Erectus? Australopithecus Africanus? Do you actually have any idea what you are talking about?

Quote:

An animal that has never changed fits evolution perfectly? That's a new one. What was the transitional animal before the turtle?

From <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html" target="_blank">Transition from amphibians to amniotes (first reptiles)</a>:

Quote:

Scutosaurus and other pareiasaurs (mid-Permian) -- Large bulky herbivorous reptiles with turtle-like skull features. Several genera had bony plates in the skin, possibly the first signs of a turtle shell.

Deltavjatia vjatkensis (Permian) -- A recently discovered pareiasaur with numerous turtle-like skull features (e.g., a very high palate), limbs, and girdles, and lateral projections flaring out some of the vertebrae in a very shell-like way. (Lee, 1993)

Proganochelys (late Triassic) -- a primitive turtle, with a fully turtle-like skull, beak, and shell, but with some primitive traits such as rows of little palatal teeth, a still-recognizable clavicle, a simple captorhinid-type jaw musculature, a primitive captorhinid- type ear, a non-retractable neck, etc..

Recently discovered turtles from the early Jurassic, not yet described.

Mid-Jurassic turtles had already divided into the two main groups of modern turtles, the side-necked turtles and the arch-necked turtles. Obviously these two groups developed neck retraction separately, and came up with totally different solutions. In fact the first known arch-necked turtles, from the Late Jurassic, could not retract their necks, and only later did their descendents develop the archable neck. Early reptiles to diapsids: (see Evans, in Benton 1988, for more info)

...So where did you get the bizarre notion that turtles don't have ancestors?

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Jack the Bodiless ]

hezekiah jones · 01-03-2002, 07:38 AM

Another excellent turtle page, which You Betcha won't bother to read because it's all lies:

<a href="http://research.amnh.org/~esg/" target="_blank">E.S. Gaffney's Phylogeny of Turtles</a>.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-03-2002, 06:43 AM	#92
Orpheous99 Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Nova Scotia, Canada Posts: 1,258	Originally posted by You Betcha:b There is evidence. All scientific evidence shows that anything with meaning and specific complexity comes from an intelligent being, and cannot form naturally. Therefore, a supernatural being created the unvierse and life as we know it. What do you mean by meaning? Where does it show this? What scientific "evidence" are you using, from one of those cretinist "schools"? There is no evidence that the universe formed on its own. Who created god? If the universe can't be created on its own then your god can't be either.

01-03-2002, 07:38 AM	#100
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Another excellent turtle page, which You Betcha won't bother to read because it's all lies: <a href="http://research.amnh.org/~esg/" target="_blank">E.S. Gaffney's Phylogeny of Turtles</a>.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.