|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 01/01/2010 : 22:04:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
This link contains no proof of a transitional fossil. |
That's because you believe the lie you've been told about transitional fossils.| I said before that all transitionals found to date are open to interpretation. |
Just because you repeat yourself doesn't make what you say true.| One cannot say that one species has evolved to a more modern species because its also equally plausable that they didnt. |
Please provide the calculations and measurements you made to determine that the two interpretations you're discussing are "equally plausible."| There is no proof either way. |
Good thing science doesn't demand "proof," then.| Good example is the horse tree showing how the horse evolved. Its since been shown that the tree is flawed and did not happen. |
By whom?| But it used to be accepted as proof and fact of evolution. |
No, you've got it backwards.| Its not, and neither are any others. |
Because you don't understand what you're talking about.| If evolution were true we would see more transistionals... |
More? More than zero, according to you. But we see lots of transitionals, you're just denying that they are transitional because you're using a definition of the word that no scientist uses.| ...then the final products and gaps would be very rare. |
So you're saying that if evolution were true, fossilization would be more common? Do you have any clue as to what you're saying?| Fact is many fossils found in the precambrian are found as they are today. |
Name one.| First, the fossils do not occur in order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts. |
Please describe to us how you have measured "complexity." Also, please offer a citation to any evolutionary biologist who claims that evolution must proceed from "simple to complex."| In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record... |
In reality, each individual fossil appears exactly once in the record.| ...fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. |
Ah, the creationist cartoon version of evolution, with maladapted creatures somehow living to provide us with fossils.| To be honest, the entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). |
Jellyfish? How many fossil jellyfish are there?| The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking. A case can perhaps be made for the order of first appearance of vertebrates (i.e., fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals), but vertebrate fossils are exceptions to the rule and usually quite fragmentary, with the lower range of each often being extended downward with new discoveries. Most come from Ice Age deposits which sometimes contain human remains also. |
Where is your source for this? Oh, you plagiarized it from the Institute for Creation Research, which published these claims without any scientific support, also.| Second, the evolutionary presentation in the textbook column implies that all life has come from one (or perhaps a few) common ancestor(s). But the Cambrian System, the lowest (i.e., oldest) level containing extensive multicellular fossils, exhibits a virtual explosion of life. Suddenly (by this I mean without the necessary ancestors lower in the column), every phylum of life is found—every basic body style, including vertebrate fish. The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many. |
John Morris hasn't been studying.| Third, these diverse forms continue up the column (i.e., throughout time) with much the same appearance possessed at the start. The term stasis describes the tendency to "stay" the same, remain "stationary" or "static." Some body styles go extinct as you come up the column, but no new basic styles are introduced. |
See, you (matt) steal this stuff and post it without comment, which tells us that you're just swallowing the creationist lies as truth.
You, matt, can't offer any evidence to support the crap you're spewing, because you don't know anything more than what these lying idiots are telling you. You certainly haven't done any more research than John Morris. Not when your business and hobbies keep you so busy.
So just admit it: you are a parrot of creationist dreck, and nothing more. But while you continue to do so, I'll treat the claims that you copy-and-paste as if they come from you, directly. So tell us, how have you, matt, measured the complexity of organisms before and after the Cambrian "explosion?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 22:14:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Dave, id like to clear up some misunderstanding. Yes Jesus did die for everyone and yes we teach this. However, salvation is not attained unless one puts his trust in Jesus propitiation for salvation. This is clearly what the bible says. Its got nothing to do with what a church beleives but rather what the bible says. |
Your church quotes the Bible as saying that Jesus' sacrifice reconciled God with everyone and everything on Earth. It's what the Bible says. Your church quotes the Bible as saying so. It says nothing about God being reconciled with only those who place their trust in Jesus.| God created Jesus to bring evil to the world???? |
No. Do you have reading comprehension problems? Your church quotes the Bible as saying that Jesus "existed before anything was created" and that "through him God created everything in the heavenly realms and on earth," so therefore God created evil through Jesus.| Did not evil exist before the Son of God came to earth?? |
Oh, yes. God created evil (through Jesus) before he even created the Tree.| As for me lying, whatever, and i doubt that!! |
I've pointed out where you flatly lied about what Wikipedia says. You can doubt it all you like, but you did it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 22:17:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Science and proof absolutely go together otherwise the end result is a theory and not a science. |
Bwahahahahahahaha! matt doesn't even have a clue that within science a theory is the best thing ever.| Take for example, what gos up must come down. |
Except for those things that go up and don't come down.| There is no such proof for evolution and if it were true it would have been obvious millenias ago and religion would never have gotten off the ground. |
So in your mind, matt, all religions deny evolutionary science? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 22:18:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Just answer the question. |
Why do you continue to refuse to provide any evidence of four-legged grasshoppers?
Just answer the question, matt. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 22:21:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by matt36
How does this support your theory of evolution. Sure it fits in, but no more than my theory that God made them that way, just like he made chicken wings. Sorry, neither your theory nor mine is proof of anything, for nor against.
|
Well, a few of use have been asking matt36 what he considers evidence and I think that this is as close as we are going to get.
To me, this reads like matt36 thinks that a theory has to be the only possible explanation for some set of observations. This is impossible, of course. For starters, there is always more that one possible explanation in science. Second, "God could have made it that way" is always a possibility.
Now, I could be misinterpreting matt36, but somehow I suspect that I haven't.
Postmodernism, anyone?
|
Hi Hawks.
Well i think i can supply some evidence that evolution could not have happened but no i cannot prove God, nor that he created the world. I have never said i could. It is evolutionists who say evolution is no longer a theory and is a fact and its this that i take issue with. Ill roll out my science as time goes by. Right now i asked about radio metric dating. I assume most of you beleive that the millions of years theory os a cold hard fact and proven, (even though nothing in science can be proven according to some of you) So ive written a post, which ill copy again here, showing my understanding of Carbon 14 dating but with the assumptions part hilighted so you ppl can discuss this with me. From there ill open it up more and produce some dating methods which are very scientific but defy radio metric dating.
Heres what i wrote,
What is Radiometric Dating?
Radiometric dating is based on the premise that there are radioactive isotopes in nature that decay at a regular rate from the parent element to the daughter element. If we know three things we can use them to date items that contain those isotopes.
1. The original concentration of the parent isotope.
2. The concentration of the daughter element or isotope
3. The beta decay rate
For instance all living things contain carbon-14, or 14C, or radio carbon that decays to normal carbon 12C. 14C decays to 12C at a particular rate defined as half-life. One half-life of 14C is 5,730 years or half of the 14C is 12C in that amount of time. In 11,460 years another half will be gone leaving only a quarter of the 14C and so on. Because of the speed of 14C decay rate the range of dates that can be derived before any detectable 14C is left, is about 50,000 years. Anything over that has a bit of speculation built in.
But these methods are not as infallible as the evolutionists would have us think. Let us look again at the three things we need to know to set a date.
1. The original concentration of the parent isotope. We must know how much of the parent was originally there and that there was no parent injected in during the time we are measuring.
2. The daughter concentration must not be compromised by an injection of daughter element or isotope during the time line.
3. The decay rate must be constant.
But evidence proves that all these assumption are fraught with error. It is well know that argon gas does intrude into igneous rock and skew dates in the most popular K-Ar dating method. In fact all the parent and daughter elements are water soluble and are known to leach into and out of igneous rocks thus potentially skewing the dates derived from their ratios.
Regards, Matt.
Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts. Life Itself (1981) p.153
Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 22:24:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by matt36
Just answer the question. |
Why do you continue to refuse to provide any evidence of four-legged grasshoppers?
Just answer the question, matt.
|
Dave,
Im unsure at what your getting at here. I am not familiar with this. Explain and ill make comment. Matt |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 22:25:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
I wrote my words and copy and pasted some to save time. I would have written it no different. |
Then you should have evidence to support your claims. Where is it? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 22:40:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Dave, read again what i wrote. Im saying the lights are the sun and moon. |
You said that the Sun and the Moon were created on day one. The Bible clearly states that the Sun and Moon were created on day four.| Dave, God says you CAN do as you wish. God forces nobody. |
Except when God hardened Pharoah's heart.| God suppied salvation to all mankind but not all of mankind, such as yourself, choose to take up his offer. |
No, God clearly reconciled himself with everyone. It wasn't an offer, it was an act.| Dave, with respect, please dont tell me what my church or the bible says. I have a degree in theology. |
Please, matt, don't threaten me with your alleged degree. You still haven't provided any fossils of any four-legged grasshoppers.
Oh, wait. Your degree apparently didn't get into such details, because you claim ignorance of the Bible:| Im unsure at what your getting at here. I am not familiar with this. Explain and ill make comment. |
Perhaps, before we get into this, you should explain, matt, which translation of the Bible is your preferred version, and why. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 23:02:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
So ive written a post, which ill copy again here... |
Are you thetruthhurts2009?| ...showing my understanding of Carbon 14 dating... |
The problem you have, matt, is that you think all radiometric dating functions like 14C dating. It does not.| For instance all living things contain carbon-14, or 14C, or radio carbon that decays to normal carbon 12C. |
And this statement is factually false. It is not true that 14C decays into 12C. 14C beta-decays into 14N.
So you see, matt, this kind of thing is how we all know that you don't know what you're talking about. You won't even invest the tiny amount of time checking that the things that you state as facts are, indeed, facts. And so you get them wrong, and obviously so to anyone with an iota more knowledge than you.
And you did it again, here:Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts. Life Itself (1981) p.153
Richard Dawkins (b. 1941) Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University |
Francis Crick wrote Life Itself, not Richard Dawkins.
Really, how stupid do you think we are? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 23:26:42 [Permalink]
|
Welp, we have seen creationists, and we have seen creationists. But this is my favorite quote from any creationist who ever graced these forums.
Matt:
Science and proof absolutely go together otherwise the end result is a theory and not a science. |
I love this, not because stupider things haven't been said here, but because Matt claims to have been arguing against evolution for the last 25 years and, based on the above quote, hasn't learned a thing about science in all of that time. Hell, not even Henry Morris, or Duan Gish, or Ken Ham, or Kent Hovind would have said anything that dumb. And that's saying something. Now he claims to have a degree in theology but he doesn't know what is actually in Genesis, or the bible for that matter, but is willing to argue a point that is available to anyone who can read!
Massive fail, Matt. You came here with both barrels blazing. Unfortunately, all you have there is a pop gun...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 23:56:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by matt36
This link contains no proof of a transitional fossil. |
That's because you believe the lie you've been told about transitional fossils.| I said before that all transitionals found to date are open to interpretation. |
Just because you repeat yourself doesn't make what you say true.| One cannot say that one species has evolved to a more modern species because its also equally plausable that they didnt. |
Please provide the calculations and measurements you made to determine that the two interpretations you're discussing are "equally plausible."| There is no proof either way. |
Good thing science doesn't demand "proof," then.| Good example is the horse tree showing how the horse evolved. Its since been shown that the tree is flawed and did not happen. |
By whom?| But it used to be accepted as proof and fact of evolution. |
No, you've got it backwards.| Its not, and neither are any others. |
Because you don't understand what you're talking about.| If evolution were true we would see more transistionals... |
More? More than zero, according to you. But we see lots of transitionals, you're just denying that they are transitional because you're using a definition of the word that no scientist uses.| ...then the final products and gaps would be very rare. |
So you're saying that if evolution were true, fossilization would be more common? Do you have any clue as to what you're saying?| Fact is many fossils found in the precambrian are found as they are today. |
Name one.| First, the fossils do not occur in order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts. |
Please describe to us how you have measured "complexity." Also, please offer a citation to any evolutionary biologist who claims that evolution must proceed from "simple to complex."| In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record... |
In reality, each individual fossil appears exactly once in the record.| ...fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. |
Ah, the creationist cartoon version of evolution, with maladapted creatures somehow living to provide us with fossils.| To be honest, the entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). |
Jellyfish? How many fossil jellyfish are there?| The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking. A case can perhaps be made for the order of first appearance of vertebrates (i.e., fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals), but vertebrate fossils are exceptions to the rule and usually quite fragmentary, with the lower range of each often being extended downward with new discoveries. Most come from Ice Age deposits which sometimes contain human remains also. |
Where is your source for this? Oh, you plagiarized it from the Institute for Creation Research, which published these claims without any scientific support, also.| Second, the evolutionary presentation in the textbook column implies that all life has come from one (or perhaps a few) common ancestor(s). But the Cambrian System, the lowest (i.e., oldest) level containing extensive multicellular fossils, exhibits a virtual explosion of life. Suddenly (by this I mean without the necessary ancestors lower in the column), every phylum of life is found—every basic body style, including vertebrate fish. The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many. |
John Morris hasn't been studying.| Third, these diverse forms continue up the column (i.e., throughout time) with much the same appearance possessed at the start. The term stasis describes the tendency to "stay" the same, remain "stationary" or "static." Some body styles go extinct as you come up the column, but no new basic styles are introduced. |
See, you (matt) steal this stuff and post it without comment, which tells us that you're just swallowing the creationist lies as truth.
You, matt, can't offer any evidence to support the crap you're spewing, because you don't know anything more than what these lying idiots are telling you. You certainly haven't done any more research than John Morris. Not when your business and hobbies keep you so busy.
So just admit it: you are a parrot of creationist dreck, and nothing more. But while you continue to do so, I'll treat the claims that you copy-and-paste as if they come from you, directly. So tell us, how have you, matt, measured the complexity of organisms before and after the Cambrian "explosion?"
|
Dave, i have not lied. A transitional fossil is as follows according to the dictionary.
A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. According to evolutionary theory, a transitional form represents an evolutionary stage.
Transitional can be used for those forms that do not have a significant amount of unique derived traits that the derived relative does not possess as well. In other words: a transitional is morphologically close (if not identical) to the actual common ancestor of itself and the derived relative.
So? whats the problem.
So you want me to name just one precambrian fossil. ok,
Precambrian Plant Fossils
Uniformitarian geologists divide the Precambrian into two Eons: the Proterozoic, and the underlying Archean (Figure 1). Proterozoic strata have yielded plant fossils which have been investigated for more than one hundred years (Hofmann, 1971; Link et al., 1993; McMenamin and McMenamin, 1990). For some uniformitarians, life did not exist when the underlying Archean strata were deposited because the atmosphere was not believed to have contained sufficient oxygen to allow aerobic life to have formed or developed (Cloud, 1968; 1976; 1983; Knoll, 1992). This concept has recently been challenged with physical evidence of aerobic plant fossils in Archean rocks. At present, uniformitarians have reported plant fossils in 3.4 to 3.5 billion year old (commonly abbreviated Ga) Archean strata in Australia and South Africa (Margulis, 1988; McNamara and Long, 1998; Read and Watson, 1975; Schopf and Walter, 1983; Schopf, 1994; Strother, 1989; Walter, 1983). According to Schopf (1994, p. 193), evidence of plant life in the Early Archean consists of:
...(1) megascopic microbially produced stromatolites; (2) microscopic cellularly preserved microorganisms; and (3) particulate carbonaceous matter (kerogen), identifiable on the basis of its carbon isotopic composition as a product of biological activity.
The discovery of these Archean fossils has created a problem for the paleontological community. Fossils of this age contradict models of the origin of life on this planet1(Schopf, 1999). Whatever the requirements that evolution might dictate, plant fossils clearly exist within these ancient rocks.
These fossils force uniformitarians to deal with the sudden appearance of life in Earth’s supposed very distant past. These plant fossils have been found in Precambrian rocks across the globe (Cooper, Jago, MacKinnon, Shergold, and Vidal, 1982; Glaessner, 1979; Hofmann and Schopf, 1983; Iltchenko, 1972). Within the evolutionary model this suggests that plant life was flourishing very early in Earth’s history, and that it must have evolved and expanded rapidly (Schopf, 1982, 1999). No credible explanation of these discoveries has been provided to explain the presence of these fossils through evolution and dispersion.
The organic remains of Precambrian plant fossils are found within ancient sedimentary and metasedimentary2 rocks and strata found on the continents. However, extracting the organic remains of these plant fossils remains a complicated and exacting science, and contamination is believed to be a serious problem (Schopf, 1999; Schopf and Walter, 1983).
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 23:59:27 [Permalink]
|
Hey, Matt, still waiting for you to "shred" ERVs.
As for the rest of your babble.... You have no idea how pathetic you sound. I almost pity you.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 00:01:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I love this, not because stupider things haven't been said here, but because Matt claims to have been arguing against evolution for the last 25 years and, based on the above quote, hasn't learned a thing about science in all of that time. Hell, not even Henry Morris, or Duan Gish, or Ken Ham, or Kent Hovind would have said anything that dumb. |
Actually, thinking about this some, there are a lot of subtleties involved in what makes a theory the ne plus ultra of science. Most people think science is just a pile of facts, completely neglecting the explanations (theories) that tie those facts together in fantastically interesting ways. Morris, Gish, Ham and Hovind have all made the "evolution is just a theory" mistake, which largely implies the same thing as what matt here has said.
Really, this makes matt's other mistakes (like that 14C decays into 12C), which can be checked by anyone in a couple of minutes with Google and basic comprehension of English, vastly more stupid than confusing a scientific theory with a guess. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 00:15:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
Dave, i have not lied. |
Sure, you have. You claimed that Wikipedia says that SLOT says that order cannot come from disorder (or words to that effect). Wikipedia clearly says otherwise, so you lied about what Wikipedia says. You also lied about what Rick Groleau wrote. And you're lying to yourself when you claim that a theory isn't science. A transitional fossil is as follows according to the dictionary.
A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. According to evolutionary theory, a transitional form represents an evolutionary stage.
Transitional can be used for those forms that do not have a significant amount of unique derived traits that the derived relative does not possess as well. In other words: a transitional is morphologically close (if not identical) to the actual common ancestor of itself and the derived relative.
So? whats the problem. |
The problem is that that's not what you said that the term "transitional fossil" means, before, when you said that a transitional fossil is "a record of part of the transition from a lower evolved species to another." I'd like you to describe how your earlier definition and the "dictionary" definition you have now supplied are similar.| So you want me to name just one precambrian fossil. |
No, I asked you to name a single jellyfish fossil. Plants are not jellyfish. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 06:02:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by R.Wreck
More cut and paste without attribution. Baby Jesus is bawling his eyes out.
|
It shouldn't be too hard to spot. Just look for paragraphs without misspellings, and which contain proper grammar, and you can bet your ass a creationist is cutting and pasting from somewhere else.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dennett answers NY Times on Dawkins’ book
Topic Locked
