Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8

 

2006-04-18 15:03:00
Daysniper
Member
+42|6875

sfg-Ice__ wrote:

WTW..I will ask you this about evolution...Why do we have tail bones?  Why do we have a appendix?  (Just to fill you in thats the organ that helps process raw meat that are bodies don't need anymore).  Also, why do you suppose that mans brain has gotten bigger over time?  Why do people in differant cultures look differantly.  Ie those in europe from those in africa.  IF there is a change thats a mutation.

While I think its noble of you to stick to your guns, how can you sit there and just discount all of science.  Is it some osrt of superiority thing where people cannot admit they are decended from apes?  Hell we're all decended from bacteria....everything on earth that is living. 

In my opinion its the mind set of being superior to everything on earth that is bringing about our downfall as a society.  Face it or not, but we are all connected in this world.  We are all made up of the same things.
I second that opinion.
Nice way to put it.
2006-04-18 17:56:22
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Spark wrote:

Well for my part my main 'attacks' have been on extremely flawed creationist arguments.
Will you admit evolution is flawed?  I'll cease my posts if you do so.

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Is the match made of wood or rock?

"Carbon-14 is not appropriate for rocks because it must involve organic carbon. Rocks are made of minerals that are by definition inorganic.
"With 14C, we can only calculate the age of something that was once living (contains organic carbon). Since (most) rocks were never alive, we can't use this to date a rock.
"The half life of 14C is geologically short -- 5730 years -- and is therefore not useful for materials older than about 35,000 years. That's well over 4 billion years of geologic history that we can't touch."
From:
http://serc.carleton.edu/quantskills/me … Decay.html
Carbon dating may not be accurate when looking geologic time, but other radiometric dating techniques are not constrained by the relatively short life of carbon-14. This was taken from the wikipedia page on radiometric dating

Uranium-lead dating is usually performed on the mineral "zircon" (ZrSiO4), though it can be used on other materials. Zircon incorporates uranium atoms into its crystalline structure as substitutes for zirconium, but strongly rejects lead. It has a very high blocking temperature, is resistant to mechanical weathering and is very chemically inert. Zircon also forms multiple crystal layers during metamorphic events, which each may record an isotopic age of the event. These can be dated by a SHRIMP ion microprobe.

One of its great advantages is that any sample provides two clocks, one based on uranium-235's decay to lead-207 with a half-life of about 700 million years, and one based on uranium-238's decay to lead-206 with a half-life of about 4.5 billion years, providing a built-in crosscheck that allows accurate determination of the age of the sample even if some of the lead has been lost.
I read some pages denouncing radiometric dating as unreliable, but suprise suprise they were all written by creationists. Besides which, even if the dating techniques are unreliable, they would have to be unreliable by a factor of a few thousand to account for a Creationist timeline. After all, any date older than 6 or 7 thousand years directly contradicts Creationist doctrine, unless of course God has just arranged for things to look older than they really are, which cannot be discounted.

I'm glad to see you're using reliable sources though.
Skruples, why do you not correct those who agree with you?  Tyferra stated that a match would contain carbon and therefore carbon dating cannot be used to date rocks is false.  A match is made of wood and therefore contains organic carbon.  It is intellectual dishonesty to side with those who speak for your argument without pointing out their errors.

How much zircon is in rocks?

It is also intellectual dishonesty to call the other side of the argument unreliable.  Those sites pick up the scientist that speak their side of the argument as you too have done.  Remember, there would not be two sides in the scientific community on the topic if everything were known.
Of course its flawed. Its a theory. There are gaps. But it gives you THE MAIN PICUTRE as to what's going on.

If something is unreliable, is it wrong to say so?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-18 18:47:20
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6940

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Did I not clarify it after you asked me and yet you still went on saying I said I should be more specific?  http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=259889#p259889
I'll quote again, 'Read it again, "universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in God."  Show me a bleeding heart that believes in the Christian God.'
You have yet to rescind your statement about liberals and God, so I'm assuming you still believe it. You didn't really define 'bleeding heart' either, so I'm not sure where I should go looking for a christian one.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

The sites are based on religion, yes. But the content on the sites is scientific.  The scientist that came up with the arguments could or could not be Christians (or any religion for that matter) but it doesn't change the fact that the arguments are there and oppose evolution's "evidence".
If you do not understand why Answersingenesis is not a scientific source at this point then I am wasting my time. There may be some reasonable arguments presented there, but it's so mixed up with the Creationist myth that its unreliable. For God's sake the motto of the site is "upholding the authority of the bible from the very first verse." You really think they're going to look at evidence that doesn't support the bible? (I mean seriously look at it, not just consider it long enough to force it to fit into their little creationist universe.)

And if you need another reason, the 'scientists' at those sites assume that everything in the bible is true before they even begin their research. Lets look at some quotes from their site:
The Bible clearly teaches a literal six-day creation a few thousand years ago and a global catastrophic Flood at the time of Noah. The Bible firmly resists any attempts to marry it with evolution and millions of years. Rather than playing fast and loose with the sacred text, we ought to heed the words of Isaiah 66:2, where God says:

For My hand made all these things, thus all these things came into being,” declares the LORD. “But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.
So we shouldn't try and interpret the bible in anything but the most literal sense, and to prove this... they quote the bible! This logic is astounding: the bible is infallible, because the bible says so.
source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp

Here is a quote from either one of the answersingenesis astrophysicists or their president, they don't say:
As we will proclaim in our new planetarium, when it opens later this year (inside the Creation Museum, also under construction) near Cincinnati, Ohio, if we start with God’s infallible Word and what it clearly teaches us about the history of the world, we can be confident that the big bang and other secular ideas (such as “molecules-to-man” evolution) are wrong.
I see, so if we start with the bible and assume its God's infallible word, then we can also assume that anything that doesnt agree with it is wrong. Some more excellent logic.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 … theory.asp

And this last one is the president of the site again, giving advice on how christians should enter the creationism/evolution debate:
begin with the understanding that scientific facts are interpreted, and you must try to determine the presuppositions a person has when they interpret those facts.

hold fast to the Bible’s account of the history of the universe. Don’t let your evolutionist friend frame the terms of the debate to exclude the Bible. Without the Bible, your presuppositions are gone, and you will be unable to effectively debate your interpretation of the facts.

look at scientific facts through your biblical presuppositions, and interpret them differently.

use the operational science of the present, which the evolutionist also uses, and see if that science (when properly understood) confirms your interpretation based on the Bible.
This is not good science. In fact, I think this mindset (excluding the first point, which is actually sound advice) would get you thrown out of any respectable research institution. It seems you would make a good answersingenesis scientist though, maybe you should apply.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar … part11.asp

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Did you edit my post to include what you edited in the previous one that I quoted before it was there?
Don't beat around the bush; if you're going to accuse me of something, do it. If you really think I'm editing your posts, ask another moderator to check, though I find it sad that you are reduced to insulting my honesty and integrity.
2006-04-18 19:27:38
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS
I'm afraid, wannabe tank whore, that you are out of your element here.

Why are there so many different strains of bacteria? Why are bacteria EVOLVING IN THE LAB?

Yes, EVOLUTION IS A CONTINUING PROCESS AND ITS EFFECTS HAVE BENN OBSERVED AND MEASURED.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-18 19:53:24
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7014|Noizyland

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Show me where he cracked and cursed God.
Quit putting words in my mouth. Did I ever say he cursed God? No I didn't but Job DID QUESTION HIM!

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Hitler never existed.  He was a made up piece of propaganda to rally Germans to the nazi party.

When you start to question like this it becomes the snowball affect downward where you have to question everything.  You cannot pick and choose what to question and what not to question.
You do like mentioning Hitler don't you. I argue that the Devil was made up by Christians as a scapegoat. Hitler was a living person and there is actually solid evidence that he existed. However there is NO evidence ANYWHERE of the Devil existing.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Why did you change your argument?  First it was ' they try to blame the devil' and now it is because 'they say it was God who made it so'.
I was stating a Christian response - it wasn't my argument.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

In your eyes there is no correct one.  The Bible is clear, however.
Now there you go putting words in my mouth again. You're the one who wanted to distinguish between the factions and go talking about "christians who arn't really christians" or whatever, I was simply saying that there are many different christian faiths. Am I wrong? Not all christian faiths worship in the same way but are they wrong for doing so? Anyway, this part of the argument is getting confusing so I'll move on.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

You said it best on this one in that Christianity "remains the same".
I'm glad we can agree on something. Yes christianity remains the same no matter how much hard evidence or common sence slaps it in the face. A christian ignores it - they cannot admit they are wrong about anything, because if they did, EVERYTHING they believe in would be compromised. If a Christian admitted that Homo Sapiens evolved from apes then they'd also be admitting that there was no creation. It's all linked.

Also, I detect a hint of cinicism regarding things staying the same and things constantly changing. Yes, evoloutionary therorists - scientists - do change their opinions. They have to, constant new evidence leads them on and on to discover some kind of truth. If it is true that God exists and the world is only 6000 years old, I'm sure scientists will discover it, but the thing is it's giving more and more believable answers that God does not exist.

Chirstianity offers solid answers, science offers believable answers that can change. Honestly, I'd rather be told by someone that they're not sure about something than be lied to.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2006-04-18 19:55:20
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS
That's a good point.

Scientific theories change with evidence.

Creationist/Christian theories do not.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-19 05:01:30
Daysniper
Member
+42|6875

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Hitler never existed.  He was a made up piece of propaganda to rally Germans to the nazi party.
You are an idiot. Hitler did exist! How did Chamberlain meet with him if he was air?????
idiot

Oh, and sorry to flame. I just thought this was the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Last edited by Daysniper (2006-04-19 05:02:48)

2006-04-19 07:30:51
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

topal63 wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

You hopped in a debate Skruples and have been having across multiple threads on the 'same' subject.  I accept microevolution but not macroevolution.  Example, name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.
Warrants another you're joking right - you must be!

A short answer to your question is (what example?) = EVERYTHING LIVING.
Q. "What is the evidence of God and Creation?"
A. "EVERYTHING LIVING." 

Yep!  Good point.

topal63 wrote:

God and knowing God are two different things - with belief & faith falling into the absurd 2nd category. Of course transcendent and greater being is possible - but that does not amount knowing. Belief is not a substitute for knowing - it is not interchangeable with the concept of truth. Belief is in fact a self-annihilating concept. When one knows believing is NOT-KNOWING and that certainty is an absurdity when associated with NOT-KNOWING; all that is left for those who can accept the simple truth is that: belief amounts in actuality to uncertainty and not-actually-knowing.
Dogs still chase their tails right?  Do they believe it's chasing them?  Or do they know it's chasing them?  Are they comfortable in not-knowing?  But then of course, "what is truth"?

topal63 wrote:

So back to the quest for an up to date, utterly complete explanation of everything that lives. . .

How long does it take for a virus to become a NEW one - an unambiguously NEW form? Almost no time at all - at least in geologic terms. So your question must not be "does it happen?" But how long does it take for any organism to evolve or speciate.
To go from a bacterium, built from about 1,000 different kinds of genes, to a mammal, built from about 100,000 different kinds of genes, somewhere in an evolutionary path some new genes surely need to be added. How does this happen? Where do the blueprints for new genes come from?

Apples are oranges in your case.

topal63 wrote:

But rather maybe it is how long does it take (and EXACTLY how does it happen) for a much more complex organism such as a CAT for example to speciate and form a new species; or sub-specie variant. Don't know exactly how long, or the EXACT how, don't think there is definite answer for you (YET) - a how and how long exactly. But BIG-CATS are RIGHT NOW in the process of speciation. A tiger and lion and a leopard are very much the same animal and yet not. They can interbreed (forcibly; non-naturally that is) and a hybrid animal is the result - a Liger or Tigon (respectively speaking of Lions & Tigers). The males are always sterile but the females often are NOT. The reason this is possible is because they share the same origin; genetic heritage (in fact we all do as well, going back far enough); and they are in the process of divergence. And when the divergent process (specie interbreeding); and DYNAMIC (non-static) change, genetic change; has gone on long enough they will no longer be able to produce live young (through forced breeding techniques).

Horse; donkey = mule = same thing. In the process of divergence - doing that unambiguous changing thing - only it seems ambiguous to you.
Has anyone tried to combine an ape with a human?  Why not?  But again you fail to point out the obvious, none of these are examples of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.  These are forced breedings and by them being sterile "natural selection" will take care of that. 

topal63 wrote:

Maybe it's an eyeball that's got you confused? Gee that's complicated how could something so purposeful & complex just happen by random occurrences? Maybe you just can’t grasp the time involved or the fact that (disregarding the meaningless anthropic principle) we live in a Universe where life has happened based upon the physical laws of that Universe.
And yet, how did the first living cell arise spontaneously from nonliving chemicals? 

topal63 wrote:

Mutations & random change - is not as random as you might believe; or have been led to believe. In interdependent systems, environments & the life forms within it are quite dynamic. So where did you get the idea that all is random (maybe you don't think that is what the science of evolution is teaching, maybe you do - well it isn't exactly). The chemistry of genetics is based upon physical laws that are REAL physical laws (not random, not only would life not possible, nor would water, or a star, or for that matter anything). The FACTS are not misleading either. The MOUNTAIN of evidence for common genetic heritage is overwhelming; from the vast variants of specie & sub-specie forms; to blood chemistry; to DNA itself; the fossil record; the ability for HUMANS to even alter genes, by splicing, interchanging genes from a THAT into A THAT over there (Doing even what micro-tuner ID-God supposedly does)!
What are the physical laws? 
Compare the DNA of a human to bacteria.
So, if it took millions of years for humans to evolve from a common ancestor, where is the fossil record you claim exists?
A lab is completely different than a open system.

topal63 wrote:

The structure of life is a common thread pointing back to one origin in this apparently self contained Universe. The common origin may even be God? But that is not a scientific explanation of a process - and the processes here in this Universe are obeying the law quite well. Science is not concerned with mythical definitions of processes - it yields no NEW information about the actual workings of the Universe. Truth & scientific discovery are the result even of a certain Christian respect; and quest for the truth. Science does NOT disprove the God concept. They simply render the God as explanation in an apparently self-contained Universe - as nothing more than an (uncertain; don’t really know) BELIEF system unique to a religious (or more aptly mythological) mindset; or mem.

The reason evolution is attacked by the Christian-right it is not because it is a bad flimsy scientific theory lacking in fact; documention; or evidence (on the contrary it is massively documented and the mountain of evidence is getting larger every day). But rather because it further points towards a Universe that is apparently self-contained - placing God as a “hands-off” transcendent being (maybe God is the prime; or first movement; after that it; the Universe; apparently has all it’s physical laws and proceeds on its own) - and that is in direct opposition to the myth of the Jesus, and the conception; belief; in a personal God (which I might point out is subject to the self-annihilating; don't actually know; uncertainty problem)
I'm looking forward to the "mountain of evidence" like the means by which a more complex organism arises from a simpler one. Stephen J. Gould from Harvard has termed "the trade secret of paleontology" as the fact that the transitional forms that you would expect to find in the rock record are systematically absent.  Darwin admitted to the lack of intermediate types in the fossil record to be "the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against theory." David Kitts, a modern day evolutionist, writes "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them." How can a hypothesis be given scientific status if its claims are contradicted by observations?
2006-04-19 07:31:58
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Daysniper wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Hitler never existed.  He was a made up piece of propaganda to rally Germans to the nazi party.
You are an idiot. Hitler did exist! How did Chamberlain meet with him if he was air?????
idiot

Oh, and sorry to flame. I just thought this was the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
Don't quote out of context... it's not being truthful.
2006-04-19 07:58:53
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Did I not clarify it after you asked me and yet you still went on saying I said I should be more specific?  http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=259889#p259889
I'll quote again, 'Read it again, "universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in God."  Show me a bleeding heart that believes in the Christian God.'
You have yet to rescind your statement about liberals and God, so I'm assuming you still believe it. You didn't really define 'bleeding heart' either, so I'm not sure where I should go looking for a christian one.
Universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in the Christian God.  That better?

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

The sites are based on religion, yes. But the content on the sites is scientific.  The scientist that came up with the arguments could or could not be Christians (or any religion for that matter) but it doesn't change the fact that the arguments are there and oppose evolution's "evidence".
If you do not understand why Answersingenesis is not a scientific source at this point then I am wasting my time. There may be some reasonable arguments presented there, but it's so mixed up with the Creationist myth that its unreliable. For God's sake the motto of the site is "upholding the authority of the bible from the very first verse." You really think they're going to look at evidence that doesn't support the bible? (I mean seriously look at it, not just consider it long enough to force it to fit into their little creationist universe.)
The reverse can be said about your sites.  Do you think that scientist on your side will look at the Bible as a reputable source?  So then, I can claim bias on your sources.  But they wouldn't be 'our' sources for this debate if they weren't bias.  I don't see why you can't comprehend that?

Skruples wrote:

And if you need another reason, the 'scientists' at those sites assume that everything in the bible is true before they even begin their research. Lets look at some quotes from their site:
And scientist at your sites assume everything in the Bible is false before they begin their research... so what's your point?

Skruples wrote:

So we shouldn't try and interpret the bible in anything but the most literal sense, and to prove this... they quote the bible! This logic is astounding: the bible is infallible, because the bible says so.
source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0404order.asp
So when debating evolution, what do you quote?  Oh yes, the theory.  Any difference in that logic?

Skruples wrote:

I see, so if we start with the bible and assume its God's infallible word, then we can also assume that anything that doesnt agree with it is wrong. Some more excellent logic.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 … theory.asp
Hmmm... are you not seeing similarities between your logic and mine?  I guess not.  Scientific evidence disputes a lot of evolution's claims and that evidence it picked up by those sites and likewise the evidence that supports evolution is picked up by your sites... it would make for a conundrum to discredit my sites by claiming bias and failing to point out your own.

Skruples wrote:

This is not good science. In fact, I think this mindset (excluding the first point, which is actually sound advice) would get you thrown out of any respectable research institution. It seems you would make a good answersingenesis scientist though, maybe you should apply.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar … part11.asp
Using science to disprove science is bad science?  In that case the earth is still flat.

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Did you edit my post to include what you edited in the previous one that I quoted before it was there?
Don't beat around the bush; if you're going to accuse me of something, do it. If you really think I'm editing your posts, ask another moderator to check, though I find it sad that you are reduced to insulting my honesty and integrity.
So why can't you answer it?  Yesterday you posted and I saw what you posted and quoted it and went afk for a few minutes while i was still answering your post.  I posted and saw that you had edited your post and added about 4 more sentences and another quote.  I looked at my quote and it wasn't there.  I went afk again to reply to it and your added sentences were in my reply.  I ask again, did you edit my post to include what you had edited.
2006-04-19 12:20:13
sfg-Ice__
Member
+4|6893
Hmm no replies to my posts I see.  Well a few hehe.  Anyway, evolutionism is not the absence of gods hand but is the tool of goods will.  You think there is something here on this earth not by gods plan?  Thats not only foolish to to think but naive at best.  To discount all the evidence for evolution and say its all crap is nuts.  Evolution is gods work!!   But this half assed crack pot way of thinking thats only been around for a few years and has so little proof behind it other than the age old childish answer "because" screams that you do not want to know the world and would rather live in the world of not knowing. 

What about dinosaurs?  Why where they around first?  Why did they all die off?  Did they have a religion?  COuld they have evolved if given time?  Using Dinosaurs you can tract evolution through the ages.  How chickens are related to the T-Rex is one way.  But chickens are not 20+ ft tall...hmmm strange.

The other thing is ... whats the differance between the "christian god" and the other gods?  Are they wrong for following other gods?  Even if the core of the message is the same?  hmm that superiority thing again.  Keeps coming up.

Ohh yeah I'll go on record saying that if creatism gains ground and becomes the dominant "science" then I can definately see another dark age coming about.

Last edited by sfg-Ice__ (2006-04-19 12:20:59)

2006-04-19 14:05:59
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6940

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in the Christian God.  That better?
And what are you basing this on? Have there been studies that show most liberals are not Christian? Has the U.S census bureau shown this to be true? Or is this simply based on your personal opinion? Show me the evidence and I might take you seriously.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

The reverse can be said about your sites.  Do you think that scientist on your side will look at the Bible as a reputable source?  So then, I can claim bias on your sources.  But they wouldn't be 'our' sources for this debate if they weren't bias.  I don't see why you can't comprehend that?
You can claim bias all you want. Of course most scientists are biased against the bible. Why? Because there is absolutely no evidence to support what the Bible says is accurate in any way. In fact, the staggering majority of evidence points to the bible being completely inaccurate. Should scientists be considering the holy texts of Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism and every other religion on Earth accurate sources too? Many of them contradict each other, it would be kind of hard to get any work done. What I can't comprehend is how you consider the Bible to be the foundation of all truth and knowledge on this Earth, but everyone elses religion is just a bunch of rubbish. You need to open your eyes.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

And scientist at your sites assume everything in the Bible is false before they begin their research... so what's your point?
The difference is the scientists dont 'assume' anything, their lack of faith in the bible when it comes to scientific matters is based on decades of hard science, instead of just blind faith.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

So when debating evolution, what do you quote?  Oh yes, the theory.  Any difference in that logic?
Yes, and heres the difference: Evolutionary theory is supported by third party evidence, evidence that anyone can see for themselves. The Bible is not supported by anything but itself and the faith of its believers

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Hmmm... are you not seeing similarities between your logic and mine?  I guess not.  Scientific evidence disputes a lot of evolution's claims and that evidence it picked up by those sites and likewise the evidence that supports evolution is picked up by your sites... it would make for a conundrum to discredit my sites by claiming bias and failing to point out your own.
You know what? I wouldnt have a problem with those sites if they didn't use the bible as a primary source. The bible is not a scientific work. It was not written with science in mind. It does not provide any evidence to support itself, other than saying that it is infallible. It cannot be used as a source of information on scientific matters. If you cannot understand this, you need to go to your local community college and take a critical thinking course.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Using science to disprove science is bad science?  In that case the earth is still flat.
If every researcher followed the guidelines laid out in my quote, evolution wouldnt exist. Geology wouldnt exist. The sun would still revolve around the Earth. I could go on...

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Has anyone tried to combine an ape with a human?  Why not?  But again you fail to point out the obvious, none of these are examples of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.  These are forced breedings and by them being sterile "natural selection" will take care of that.
You want an example of speciation? Here you go: http://www.wsu.edu/NIS/Universe/instant.html
and heres a list from talkorigins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

So why can't you answer it?  Yesterday you posted and I saw what you posted and quoted it and went afk for a few minutes while i was still answering your post.  I posted and saw that you had edited your post and added about 4 more sentences and another quote.  I looked at my quote and it wasn't there.  I went afk again to reply to it and your added sentences were in my reply.  I ask again, did you edit my post to include what you had edited.
You have my answer. I've never touched any of your replies, in fact I went back through this thread and checked just to make sure. Noone has edited any of your replies but you. Like I said, if you don't believe me, ask any of the other moderators to check, and if you have a problem with the way I moderate, take it up with Chuyskywalker or tf-Voodoochild.

Oh, and you might find this interesting.
2006-04-19 14:42:22
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6929|Tampa Bay Florida
skruples ftw.
2006-04-19 16:19:12
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS
I think wannabe_tank_whore needs to see:

this
this, I mean... there all flu viruses. But what's with the 'H5N1, H1N1, H3N8' Guess the answer.
And to round it off
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-21 07:21:47
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Tyferra wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Show me where he cracked and cursed God.
Quit putting words in my mouth. Did I ever say he cursed God? No I didn't but Job DID QUESTION HIM!
Allow me to explain.  The purpose of Satan was to get Job to curse God. 
JOB 1:9 "Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. 10 "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."

So you see, it would be more than just question His actions for him to have failed this test.

Tyferra wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Hitler never existed.  He was a made up piece of propaganda to rally Germans to the nazi party.
When you start to question like this it becomes the snowball affect downward where you have to question everything.  You cannot pick and choose what to question and what not to question.
You do like mentioning Hitler don't you. I argue that the Devil was made up by Christians as a scapegoat. Hitler was a living person and there is actually solid evidence that he existed. However there is NO evidence ANYWHERE of the Devil existing.
Satan appears in the OT.  Therefore, you are incorrect in your assumption.  Unless you think Christians existed before Christ?

Tyferra wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

In your eyes there is no correct one.  The Bible is clear, however.
Now there you go putting words in my mouth again. You're the one who wanted to distinguish between the factions and go talking about "christians who arn't really christians" or whatever, I was simply saying that there are many different christian faiths. Am I wrong? Not all christian faiths worship in the same way but are they wrong for doing so? Anyway, this part of the argument is getting confusing so I'll move on.
Yes you are wrong.  There is one Christian faith but many sects. 

Tyferra wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

You said it best on this one in that Christianity "remains the same".
I'm glad we can agree on something. Yes christianity remains the same no matter how much hard evidence or common sence slaps it in the face. A christian ignores it - they cannot admit they are wrong about anything, because if they did, EVERYTHING they believe in would be compromised. If a Christian admitted that Homo Sapiens evolved from apes then they'd also be admitting that there was no creation. It's all linked.
Would you admit that the black race is inferior to the white race?  Darwin did:
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (The Descent of Man 1874, p. 178).

So why haven't evolutionist admit he was wrong and stray away?

Tyferra wrote:

Also, I detect a hint of cinicism regarding things staying the same and things constantly changing. Yes, evoloutionary therorists - scientists - do change their opinions. They have to, constant new evidence leads them on and on to discover some kind of truth. If it is true that God exists and the world is only 6000 years old, I'm sure scientists will discover it, but the thing is it's giving more and more believable answers that God does not exist.

Chirstianity offers solid answers, science offers believable answers that can change. Honestly, I'd rather be told by someone that they're not sure about something than be lied to.
"but the thing is it's giving more and more believable answers that God does not exist."
What has proved this?
2006-04-21 08:02:35
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

topal63 wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Q. "What is the evidence of God and Creation?"
A. "EVERYTHING LIVING."
You missed the point. My personal beliefs have yet to enter the debate. But please show me where I stated that God & evolution are mutually exclusive ideas. The exclusion was mythical explanations provide no new information about the Universe & the processes therein. Evolution stands as is (as explanation of a self-evident process that is happening)
I will stop you here and ask, "where has macroevolution been observed?" 

topal63 wrote:

- irregardless of I.D. non-theory - irregardless of any need to refine a theory further; or refinement due to new discovery. I.D. does not amount to anything at all; as it describes nothing;
It describes "EVERYTHING LIVING."

topal63 wrote:

it is not science; its conclusions are based upon the science & scientific discovery of real science/scientists;
oxymoron? What is science?  How can science not be science?

topal63 wrote:

it’s poor logic, sophistry, and inability to actually explain a process or predict (like an actual scientific theory does) yields a non-scientific theory.  And by the way it is not pursued (in any real volume) by any credible scientists or Universities.
Look at what you said and reverse it on evolution.  Non-living chemicals transitioning to living organisms then complex organisms with the ability to reproduce.  I see a tremendous "inability to actually explain a process or predict (like an actual scientific theory does) yields a non-scientific theory. "

Now, define credible scientist.

topal63 wrote:

The Universe appears to be self-contained. The physics of cosmology & quantum mechanics point to this conclusion accurately (to within a billionth of a second after the event named the “big bang”).
Where has that been calculated?  And how is it science?
sci·ence (sī'əns)
n.
1 The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2 Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3 An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4 Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

topal63 wrote:

The process and theory of evolution properly fit this accurate model: that the Universe is self-contained and is subject to the laws; physics; processes therein. An external force is NOT acting upon the self-contained Universe. There is NO evidence for an external force acting upon the Universe; but there is (massive, directly & indirectly observable) evidence for all the many difference laws; theories; found in science.
You state this as if something has ever come out of nothing.  What law did that break?

topal63 wrote:

EVERYTHING LIVING points to a common origin within this self contained Universe. The laws of physics; govern the electrons quantum state; which in turns governs the chemical properties of atomic/molecular structures; which in turn governs the FACT that life is a realized potential of chemistry; which in turn governs biologic change (evolution); and that has been governed by an (IMO) odd rule (the opposite of entropy even) that systems are tending towards a greater complexity as time goes by.
How did non-living matter become alive?  What law did that break?

topal63 wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

topal63 wrote:

But rather maybe it is how long does it take (and EXACTLY how does it happen) for a much more complex organism such as a CAT for example to speciate and form a new species; or sub-specie variant. Don't know exactly how long, or the EXACT how, don't think there is definite answer for you (YET) - a how and how long exactly. But BIG-CATS are RIGHT NOW in the process of speciation. A tiger and lion and a leopard are very much the same animal and yet not. They can interbreed (forcibly; non-naturally that is) and a hybrid animal is the result - a Liger or Tigon (respectively speaking of Lions & Tigers). The males are always sterile but the females often are NOT. The reason this is possible is because they share the same origin; genetic heritage (in fact we all do as well, going back far enough); and they are in the process of divergence. And when the divergent process (specie interbreeding); and DYNAMIC (non-static) change, genetic change; has gone on long enough they will no longer be able to produce live young (through forced breeding techniques).

Horse; donkey = mule = same thing. In the process of divergence - doing that unambiguous changing thing - only it seems ambiguous to you.
Has anyone tried to combine an ape with a human?  Why not?  But again you fail to point out the obvious, none of these are examples of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.  These are forced breedings and by them being sterile "natural selection" will take care of that.
That is hilarious(!) . . . and sad.

Honestly you don’t understand the process. Obviously, humans and apes have diverged already as species. Big cats (horses & donkeys) are not completely diverged. Also you fail to understand the role of sexual-selection in the evolutionary process. Smell, size, nature (i.e. the fundamental character, disposition or temperament of thing), markings, etc; play an enormous role in the divergence process; and these features are often sexually selected.
Where does bestiality come into play here?

topal63 wrote:

The genetic code for any animal is subject to genetic expression & inherent non-uniformity within a population (meaning your genes are NOT in fact identical from sperm to sperm; egg to egg; individual to individual; they are only very similar; exact in some areas; and not in key areas that lead to the final expression of a genes potential). Sexual selection preferences are the most common reason for sub-specie divergence; the reason why nearly identical animals (that are the same and can breed viable non-sterile young) do not breed. If this process goes on long enough the accumulated changes both random & sexually selected will give rise to animal forms that cannot breed viable offspring. This (big-cat scenario) is an example of that exact process.
Do you practice contradicting yourself in front of a mirror?  How can "sexual selection based on smell, size, nature, etc" between two "nearly identical animals" breed "viable non-sterile young that can't breed" but eventually form a sub-specie?  I'd like to see that.

topal63 wrote:

And the example of the mouse & cichlid (provided below by skruples); more of the same. Interbreeding by sexual selection; or by isolation of a breeding population will produce the same result; diversity in animal forms that on the surface appear nearly the same, but at the genetic level are not; they cannot breed fertile or viable offspring.
Listen to yourself, "they cannot breed fertile or viable offspring."  Yet you claim we evolved from one celled organisms.  How is that even possible? 

topal63 wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

I'm looking forward to the "mountain of evidence" like the means by which a more complex organism arises from a simpler one. Stephen J. Gould from Harvard has termed "the trade secret of paleontology" as the fact that the transitional forms that you would expect to find in the rock record are systematically absent.  Darwin admitted to the lack of intermediate types in the fossil record to be "the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against theory." David Kitts, a modern day evolutionist, writes "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them." How can a hypothesis be given scientific status if its claims are contradicted by observations?
Honestly your logic & requests are absurd to say the least.

By the Darwin wrote his famous work about a hundred years ago. . .  obviously there was less evidence for transistional forms FOUND then - than there are NOW.

Back to the mountain:
Instead of posting the many transistional forms found in the fossil record here is some non-nonsense.

Transistional FAQ (a small summary of transitional forms):
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

The Main Point for the creation of the FAQ:
Creationists often state categorically that "there are no transitional fossils". As this FAQ shows, this is simply not true. That is the main point of this FAQ. There are abundant transitional fossils of both the "chain of genera" type and the "species-to-species transition" type. There are documented speciations that cross genus lines and family lines. The interpretation of that fact I leave up to you. I have outlined five possible models above, and have explained why I think some of them are better than others. You might disagree with my conclusions, and you can choose the one you think is best, (or even develop another one). But you cannot simply say that there are no transitional fossils, because there are.
I call it intellectual dishonesty to call my questions that evolution cannot explain absurd.  Read the "Main Point for the creation of the FAQ":
1) "The interpretation of that fact I leave up to you."  Does this mean they are conclusive?
2) "I have outlined five possible models above, and have explained why I think some of them are better than others."  Conclusive?  Biased?  She doesn't even have a Ph.D. 
3) "You might disagree with my conclusions, and you can choose the one you think is best,"  Conclusive?
4) "But you cannot simply say that there are no transitional fossils, because there are."  Because she says so and her models explain so.  You know better than that, topal. 
Now answer my previous questions.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

I'm looking forward to the "mountain of evidence" like the means by which a more complex organism arises from a simpler one. Stephen J. Gould from Harvard has termed "the trade secret of paleontology" as the fact that the transitional forms that you would expect to find in the rock record are systematically absent.  Darwin admitted to the lack of intermediate types in the fossil record to be "the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against theory." David Kitts, a modern day evolutionist, writes "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them." How can a hypothesis be given scientific status if its claims are contradicted by observations?
2006-04-21 08:05:24
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6956

JaMDuDe wrote:

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists
so? they were well presserved inside the bone were it may take longer to die out, probly they were taking nutritian from the ground. Sometimes ppl make mistakes, humans arent perfect, so dont blame the scientists for not knowing
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2006-04-21 08:44:09
Rygar
Canucklehead
+69|6886|Nova Scotia

JaMDuDe wrote:

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists
What's an unfossilized dinosaur bone?
2006-04-21 08:44:37
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7017

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Universities are quite liberal and most liberals don't believe in the Christian God.  That better?
And what are you basing this on? Have there been studies that show most liberals are not Christian? Has the U.S census bureau shown this to be true? Or is this simply based on your personal opinion? Show me the evidence and I might take you seriously.
Skruples, I challenged you to find a college and ask a liberal professor if he/she believes in the Christian God.  Christian God defined - The God who sent His Son to attone for our sins.

Now, show me the evidence of evolution as it 'explains' my questions in my previous post to topal.

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

The reverse can be said about your sites.  Do you think that scientist on your side will look at the Bible as a reputable source?  So then, I can claim bias on your sources.  But they wouldn't be 'our' sources for this debate if they weren't bias.  I don't see why you can't comprehend that?
You can claim bias all you want. Of course most scientists are biased against the bible. Why? Because there is absolutely no evidence to support what the Bible says is accurate in any way. In fact, the staggering majority of evidence points to the bible being completely inaccurate.
I love how you request evidence from me yet fail to supply your own. 

Skruples wrote:

Should scientists be considering the holy texts of Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Sikhism and every other religion on Earth accurate sources too? Many of them contradict each other, it would be kind of hard to get any work done. What I can't comprehend is how you consider the Bible to be the foundation of all truth and knowledge on this Earth, but everyone elses religion is just a bunch of rubbish. You need to open your eyes.
The same for your devout beliefs in evolution.

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

And scientist at your sites assume everything in the Bible is false before they begin their research... so what's your point?
The difference is the scientists dont 'assume' anything, their lack of faith in the bible when it comes to scientific matters is based on decades of hard science, instead of just blind faith.
Darwin never went out to disprove God did he?  Oh yeah, he renounced his faith and then wrote The Origin of Species.  Kind of odd it happened in that order wouldn't you say?

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

So when debating evolution, what do you quote?  Oh yes, the theory.  Any difference in that logic?
Yes, and heres the difference: Evolutionary theory is supported by third party evidence, evidence that anyone can see for themselves. The Bible is not supported by anything but itself and the faith of its believers
Skruples, the evidence is inconclusive. 

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Hmmm... are you not seeing similarities between your logic and mine?  I guess not.  Scientific evidence disputes a lot of evolution's claims and that evidence it picked up by those sites and likewise the evidence that supports evolution is picked up by your sites... it would make for a conundrum to discredit my sites by claiming bias and failing to point out your own.
You know what? I wouldnt have a problem with those sites if they didn't use the bible as a primary source. The bible is not a scientific work. It was not written with science in mind. It does not provide any evidence to support itself, other than saying that it is infallible. It cannot be used as a source of information on scientific matters. If you cannot understand this, you need to go to your local community college and take a critical thinking course.
Sure, but stop attacking the Bible and look at the scientific evidence presented.  Or seek answers to my questions to topal.

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Using science to disprove science is bad science?  In that case the earth is still flat.
If every researcher followed the guidelines laid out in my quote, evolution wouldnt exist. Geology wouldnt exist. The sun would still revolve around the Earth. I could go on...
Did I just not say that?  Did we agree for once?  I will play the lottery tonight if you confirm.

Skruples wrote:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Has anyone tried to combine an ape with a human?  Why not?  But again you fail to point out the obvious, none of these are examples of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.  These are forced breedings and by them being sterile "natural selection" will take care of that.
You want an example of speciation? Here you go: http://www.wsu.edu/NIS/Universe/instant.html
"If they become distinct enough, they become a new species."  What is distinct enough?  Who is to determine that?
"Currently it appears that the two new polyploid species are hybridizing with each other."  According to the article it hasn't happened yet.

Skruples wrote:

and heres a list from talkorigins: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
"Speciation refers to the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise." - Wikipedia
In example one, the starting organism was a Drosophila paulistorum and the end result was a Drosophila paulistorum.  In example two, the starting organism was a fireweed and the end result was a fireweed.  In example three, the starting organism was a Faeroe Island house mouse and the end result was a Faeroe Island house mouse.  In example four, the starting organisms were cichlid fishes and the end result were cichlid fishes.

Skruples, WAKE UP!  You've been lied to and it wasn't Bush.
2006-04-21 10:50:28
SFCCDailey
Banned
+106|6955|USA
To all you Christians who believe in God, good for you. Roll with it. To those that don't, good for you too! Who cares? I'll just say this. There are many different religions in the world. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindu, Buddhism ect...... And to be sooo arrogant to think that you're right just because you are a Christian and everyone else is going to hell, is completely stupid. So by that theory, I guess you Christians that like Chinese food are screwed when you get to heaven! I say pick your superstition and roll with it. Whether it's God, Buda, Allah, The Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, whatever! Believe what you want and shut the fuck up about it!

Last edited by SFCCDailey (2006-04-21 10:51:45)

2006-04-21 11:24:17
SineNomine
Panzerblitz
+37|6962|SPARTA
some posts here smell like *sniffsniff* ....middle ages
2006-04-21 13:51:13
Daysniper
Member
+42|6875

SFCCDailey wrote:

To all you Christians who believe in God, good for you. Roll with it. To those that don't, good for you too! Who cares? I'll just say this. There are many different religions in the world. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindu, Buddhism ect...... And to be sooo arrogant to think that you're right just because you are a Christian and everyone else is going to hell, is completely stupid. So by that theory, I guess you Christians that like Chinese food are screwed when you get to heaven! I say pick your superstition and roll with it. Whether it's God, Buda, Allah, The Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, whatever! Believe what you want and shut the fuck up about it!
agreed.
2006-04-21 14:00:41
sfg-Ice__
Member
+4|6893
LOL Sine nomine.  I think what would of been more appropriate would of been this post seems like a square peg trying to fit in a round hole..
2006-04-21 18:30:09
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6914|Canberra, AUS
Wannabe, you mus tbe joking.

You can't name ANY beneficial mutations?

How about the ability of H5N1 to infect humans?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-04-21 18:36:24
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|6940

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Skruples, I challenged you to find a college and ask a liberal professor if he/she believes in the Christian God.  Christian God defined - The God who sent His Son to attone for our sins.

Now, show me the evidence of evolution as it 'explains' my questions in my previous post to topal.
You know what, I dont really care if you want to believe that all college professors are atheist liberals. Its when you make that assertion and then in the same sentence say that most liberals are also atheists, or at least not good wholesome Christians like yourself, that I have a problem.

I'm not sure which part of your response to topal you're referring to, so I'll just cover a few of them and hope I get it.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

I will stop you here and ask, "where has macroevolution been observed?"
Where has divine creation been observed? You cannot apply two standards of proof, one for evolution and one for creation. And what do you mean by 'macroevolution'? I have already shown you evidence that new species are arising, which you clearly disagree with, but I will get into that in a bit. So now it's your turn, have any new species been created by God recently? The question is meaningless, and so is yours. Evolutionary theory has this process taking three and a half billion years, and you come in on the last 20 years of that and say 'I didn't see anything'. That's like standing in your living room and complaining you can't see the Milky Way galaxy.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Look at what you said and reverse it on evolution.  Non-living chemicals transitioning to living organisms then complex organisms with the ability to reproduce.  I see a tremendous "inability to actually explain a process or predict (like an actual scientific theory does) yields a non-scientific theory. "
And this does not apply to creationism? Lets try and work through the physics of Genesis, shall we? God created the entire universe in six days. Apparently, he created all of this out of nothing, the same as the big bang. He caused essentially nothing to transform directly into complex organisms with the ability to reproduce. Where did this matter come from? Where did He get the energy? You can't attack evolutionary theory for not being able to desicively prove what happened 4 billion years ago, then turn around and cover the holes in your own theories up with 'God did it'.

Now onto your replies to me again:

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

I love how you request evidence from me yet fail to supply your own.
You want evidence? How about radiometric dating, geology, astrology, evolution in general. That should get you started. And your evidence? Where has science shown that the universe was created six thousand years ago?

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

The same for your devout beliefs in evolution.
Excuse me, I'm going to go bang my face into the wall for a few minutes. It will probably be less painful than trying to argue logic with you.

You didn't answer my question either. What makes the Bible so damn special when compared to every other piece of literature on the planet? Why is it correct and everything that defies it wrong? Why is your religion correct and everyone elses wrong? Can you justify your beliefs in any rational way, like I can my supposed fanatical devotion to evolution?


wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Darwin never went out to disprove God did he?  Oh yeah, he renounced his faith and then wrote The Origin of Species.  Kind of odd it happened in that order wouldn't you say?
As I have said several times before, but you apparently choose not to read it, it is not possible to disprove God. It is only possible to disprove the Bible, which you apparently consider one in the same. And let me be clear here, I am talking about the science in the Bible, not the religion. And if you want to get even more specific, I'll just focus on the creation and Noah's ark stories.

And who cares about Darwins religious beliefs? you seem to think failing to take into account God invalidates one's opinion for all time. Most scientists don't factor God into their research. Do you think physicists sit around and wonder "is the strong nuclear force causing this reaction? Or is it God..."

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Skruples, the evidence is inconclusive.
And the evidence for Creationism is what? Foolproof? Rock hard? Will our ancestors two thousand years from now and teach their children the absolute truth of the Bible? You keep talking about the holes in the evidence for evolution without applying any of that same skepticism to your own beliefs.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Sure, but stop attacking the Bible and look at the scientific evidence presented.  Or seek answers to my questions to topal.
I'll stop attacking the Bible when they stop using the Bible as scientific evidence. If they want to argue science, fine, but they can't argue science and then stop halfway through and say 'our theory has to be correct, it says so right here in Genesis'.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Did I just not say that?  Did we agree for once?  I will play the lottery tonight if you confirm.
I don't think we just agreed. You asked if using science to disprove science was bad, and I said that what they were practicing wasn't science at all, because they formed conclusions before doing any work (it's supposed to be the other way around, in case you were wondering).

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

"If they become distinct enough, they become a new species."  What is distinct enough?  Who is to determine that?
"Currently it appears that the two new polyploid species are hybridizing with each other."  According to the article it hasn't happened yet.
Actually, according to the article it's in the process of happening, but I also don't know how old that is.

the article wrote:

Currently it appears that the two new polyploid species are hybridizing with each other. "We're watching evolution take place," says Doug Soltis.

the wikipedia article on goatsbeard plants wrote:

Goatsbeard are one example of when speciation has been observed. In the early 1900s, humans introduced three species of goatsbeard into North America. These species, T. dubius, T. pratensis, and T. porrifolius, are now common weeds in urban wastelands. In the 1950's, botanists found two new species in the regions of Idaho and Washington, where the three species overlapped.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

"Speciation refers to the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise." - Wikipedia
In example one, the starting organism was a Drosophila paulistorum and the end result was a Drosophila paulistorum.  In example two, the starting organism was a fireweed and the end result was a fireweed.  In example three, the starting organism was a Faeroe Island house mouse and the end result was a Faeroe Island house mouse.  In example four, the starting organisms were cichlid fishes and the end result were cichlid fishes.

Skruples, WAKE UP!  You've been lied to and it wasn't Bush.
You appear to have missed the point. The point was that the species in question could no longer mate with the species they split from. from the wikipedia article on species, since we are fond of using wikipedia:
Although the current scientific understanding of species suggests that there is no rigorous and comprehensive way to distinguish between different species in all cases, biologists continue to seek concrete ways to operationalize the idea. One of the most popular biological definitions of species is in terms of reproductive isolation; if two creatures cannot reproduce to produce fertile offspring, then they are in different species.
It goes on to say that there are problems with this definition, specifically: "Moreover, boundaries between species are often fuzzy: there are examples where members of one population can produce fertile offspring with a second population, and members of the second population can produce fertile offspring with members of a third population, but members of the first and third population cannot produces fertile offspring. Consequently, some people reject this definition of a species." I imagine you are about to become one of those 'some people'. Anyway, you asked for examples of speciation, I gave you what biologists consider examples of speciation, but it seems clear that anything short of a rat sprouting wings and flying away is insufficient in your eyes. If we all had a few hundred years to sit around and wait, I would think that the differences between the species mentioned would become more apparent.

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard