|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
 Posted - 12/01/2009 : 23:32:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
Originally posted by Dave W.
| Most of your "supportive" data also fits into a creation theory... |
Name a creation theory that includes trillions of dead creatures before the creation of man.
|
Oh, I think we should give him this one. He did say "a creation theory". There are an infinite amount of those that could have trillions of dead creatures before the creation of man.
Matt36, it is true that data that supports evolution does in fact support some sort of creation theory. Do you see a problem with this sort of argument?
|
Hi Hawks. "Some" evolutionary suggestive evidence falls into a gray area that could also support creation. Just quickly as im busy, (I work during the day at my business and i work all night on other parts of the business. I wish i had more time to chat with you guys as i do enjoy your discussions). Transitional fossils can fall into a creation theory because they can be simply a species never related or evolved from another and are the works of God. No evidence scientific or not suggests one way or another. Australia once had an inland sea, according to evolutionary scientists of coarse. This theory is based on the fact that Australian outback is jam packed with fossilized sea creatures. It is equally plausible that these fossils are the result of a global flood. I mean, whale fossils on top of mountain tops along with other sea creatures has been found. Was there inland seas on top of mountain as well? Sedimentary rock is found cover vast tracts of the planet including alot of mountains. Sedimentary rock requires water, in huge volumes. |
 |
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 23:37:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
By the way, no creationist discovered the frauds that Matt36 mentions. And one of them wasn't actually a fraud so much is it was a sloppy, rush to publish in a non peer reviewed magazine, that has embarrassed National Geographic, as so it should have. Technically, Archaeoraptor was not a fraud. It was a stupid mistake. In any case, it didn't take long for the mistake to be discovered. And again, it wasn't a creationist who figured it out.
Two fossils out of millions. Whoa, now that's what I would call a conspiracy if I were prone to grasping at straws...
When you gonna mention the pigs tooth, Matt?
|
I could mention the pigs tooth but i gathered you guys knew already but count that as another anyway. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 23:41:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
|
Unbiased?????????????????? Ok, ill leave you with that one. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 23:51:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by matt36
Within thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of random ways in which a system may be arranged often taken to be a measure of "disorder". Increases in entropy correspond to irreversible changes in a system, reducing the system's ability to do work as energy is lost to irretrievable heat. Thermodynamic entropy is a non-conserved state function that is of great importance in the sciences of physics and chemistry. Historically, the concept of entropy evolved in order to explain why some processes are spontaneous and others are not; entropy is accordingly an index of a system's tendency towards spontaneous change, with systems tending to progress in the direction of increasing entropy. In fact, for isolated systems, entropy is constrained by the condition that it never decreases. This fact has several important consequences in science: first, it prohibits "perpetual motion" machines; and second, it suggests an arrow of time.
An everyday example of entropy can be seen in a deck of cards. A deck ordered by suit and number will tend to progress towards a randomly arranged deck upon shuffling, because the latter system has more possible states than the former. Furthermore, this process is thermodynamically irreversible; restoring the deck to its ordered state requires the application of work. The recovery of the ordered deck via the random process of shuffling is highly unlikely because the random deck has a much higher entropy.
|
Perfectly parroted from Wikipedia, but you show nothing to indicate you understand the meaning of what you just copied-and-pasted from wiki.
Besides, copy-and-paste from another source verbatim without providing the source (like a link) is considered copyright violation, and stealing.
At least tell us where you copy from, and some way for us to tell what you copied from elsewhere and what words are truly your own.
Edited for spelling.
|
I do not have time to spell out for you in my own words, besides this wiki's explanation would carry more weight with you guys than anything i would say. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/01/2009 : 23:59:23 [Permalink]
|
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 00:29:51 [Permalink]
|
Matt:
Transitional fossils can fall into a creation theory because they can be simply a species never related or evolved from another and are the works of God. No evidence scientific or not suggests one way or another. |
Well, it was certainly nice of God to put the fossils exactly where scientists would expect them to be if God hadn’t put the fossils there.
If you want to stubbornly miss that transitionals are found in predictable layers of the fossil record, and that alone is very strong evidence for them having evolved and for them being transitional, I certainly can’t stop you. No anti-evolutionist worth his salt will ever admit that, because once they do, they must concede that evolution happens.
Matt:
Australia once had an inland sea, according to evolutionary scientists of coarse. This theory is based on the fact that Australian outback is jam packed with fossilized sea creatures. It is equally plausible that these fossils are the result of a global flood. I mean, whale fossils on top of mountain tops along with other sea creatures has been found. Was there inland seas on top of mountain as well? Sedimentary rock is found cover vast tracts of the planet including alot of mountains. Sedimentary rock requires water, in huge volumes. |
Matt. First off, there is no record of a global flood in the geological record. It’s as simple as that. Rises in ocean levels? Sure. Local floods? Lots of them. But no global flood. And just so you know, those mountains were indeed underwater at one time. We are talking about billions of years of all sorts of geological forces that do indeed force mountains to rise up and disappear again.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 00:39:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.
|
One clueless assertion after another by you. You clearly lack any basic knowledge of DNA replication or ToE.
But lets set that aside since you are so obviously not equipped to engage in any debate there.
Explain ERVs, and transposons instead.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 00:42:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by matt36
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.
|
So what do you think, that hundreds of thousands of scientists, biologists, and geneticists from every nation in the world could have full careers, publish millions of papers and sit through innumerable lectures, crack the code of DNA and not notice a problem like this? You don't think someone actually working in the field would have noticed by now that the very thing they were studied is impossible? Honestly, matt36? Come on. Who are you kidding here? What, are they all part of some global conspiracy to get together and hide the evidence for creation? Just what insane conclusion could even prompt you to make such a statement? You should be able to see the preposterousness of your accusation without even looking anything up. Just use your brain, matt36. Someone is playing you for the fool. They told you some wild shit and you got suckered in hook, line, and sinker.
BTW, have you ever even looked up any of this bilge you go around repeating? You know, you could have saved yourself a hell of a lot of embarrassment by just checking to see if what you've been told is complete bullshit or not. It's not like you have an excuse in this day and age.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 00:42:58 [Permalink]
|
Matt:
If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. |
Wrong.
From Facts About Down Syndrome:
| Down syndrome is a chromosomal disorder caused by an error in cell division that results in the presence of an additional third chromosome 21 or "trisomy 21." |
| Like all teenagers, individuals with Down syndrome undergo hormonal changes during adolescence. Therefore, teenagers with Down syndrome should be educated about their sexual drives. Scientists have medical evidence that males with Down syndrome generally have a reduced sperm count and rarely father children. Females with Down syndrome have regular menstrual periods and are capable of becoming pregnant and carrying a baby to term. |
|
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 - 12/02/2009 : 01:32:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Matt:
Transitional fossils can fall into a creation theory because they can be simply a species never related or evolved from another and are the works of God. No evidence scientific or not suggests one way or another. |
Well, it was certainly nice of God to put the fossils exactly where scientists would expect them to be if God hadn’t put the fossils there.
If you want to stubbornly miss that transitionals are found in predictable layers of the fossil record, and that alone is very strong evidence for them having evolved and for them being transitional, I certainly can’t stop you. No anti-evolutionist worth his salt will ever admit that, because once they do, they must concede that evolution happens.
Matt:
Australia once had an inland sea, according to evolutionary scientists of coarse. This theory is based on the fact that Australian outback is jam packed with fossilized sea creatures. It is equally plausible that these fossils are the result of a global flood. I mean, whale fossils on top of mountain tops along with other sea creatures has been found. Was there inland seas on top of mountain as well? Sedimentary rock is found cover vast tracts of the planet including alot of mountains. Sedimentary rock requires water, in huge volumes. |
Matt. First off, there is no record of a global flood in the geological record. It’s as simple as that. Rises in ocean levels? Sure. Local floods? Lots of them. But no global flood. And just so you know, those mountains were indeed underwater at one time. We are talking about billions of years of all sorts of geological forces that do indeed force mountains to rise up and disappear again.
|
Hi Kil,You say "very strong evidence that they evoloved" i challence you to present this "VERY STRONG EVIDENCE". yeah God may have put them exactly where scientists expected them to be but equally he could have made them as seperate species as we expect them to be. No fors, no against s here sorry. Scientists words against mine, no facts or proofs either way.
No proof that there wasn't a global flood, no proof that the mountains were covered in water millions of years ago. Like i said, some evolutionary theories equally fit into creation. I named just two but there ios lots lots more. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 01:38:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by matt36
The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.
|
So what do you think, that hundreds of thousands of scientists, biologists, and geneticists from every nation in the world could have full careers, publish millions of papers and sit through innumerable lectures, crack the code of DNA and not notice a problem like this? You don't think someone actually working in the field would have noticed by now that the very thing they were studied is impossible? Honestly, matt36? Come on. Who are you kidding here? What, are they all part of some global conspiracy to get together and hide the evidence for creation? Just what insane conclusion could even prompt you to make such a statement? You should be able to see the preposterousness of your accusation without even looking anything up. Just use your brain, matt36. Someone is playing you for the fool. They told you some wild shit and you got suckered in hook, line, and sinker.
BTW, have you ever even looked up any of this bilge you go around repeating? You know, you could have saved yourself a hell of a lot of embarrassment by just checking to see if what you've been told is complete bullshit or not. It's not like you have an excuse in this day and age.
|
Hi H Humbert, no i dont think they didnt notice at all. i think they know full well but because it fly's in the face of evolutionary theory they reject it or ignore it. Scientists of the larger proportion are just like you guys. Die hard evolutionists who will not accept any other theory whether its scientific or not. At the end of the day, Humbert, the Dna Scientists are correct in saying this or they are not. If they are correct, and all data says they are, then evolution has a problem doesn't it. |
|
|
|
matt36
New Member
Australia
49 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 01:43:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Matt:
If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. |
Wrong.
From Facts About Down Syndrome:
| Down syndrome is a chromosomal disorder caused by an error in cell division that results in the presence of an additional third chromosome 21 or "trisomy 21." |
| Like all teenagers, individuals with Down syndrome undergo hormonal changes during adolescence. Therefore, teenagers with Down syndrome should be educated about their sexual drives. Scientists have medical evidence that males with Down syndrome generally have a reduced sperm count and rarely father children. Females with Down syndrome have regular menstrual periods and are capable of becoming pregnant and carrying a baby to term. |
|
Why then do we not see downs syndrome everywhere. I mean all species should suffer from it in a 100% way. Fact is they dont and are perfect. Shows that the second law applies here. Order cannot come from disorder and the fact that a chromosomal deformity happens it only results in a deformation and not a "HIGHER order of species. Second, this abnormality would need to breed with a equally abnormal species of its own kind, not another kind. The result is not a step up in the species as is shown by downsyndrome breeding. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 03:03:45 [Permalink]
|
Matt, your complete lack of knowledge makes it virtually impossible to speak to you about these things. If a downs syndrome person reproduces with a normal person there is a 50% chance the child will inherit trisomy 21. Same chance as two down's syndrome people having a child, 50% of them will also have it.
Now lets examine the phenomenom a little more closely. Chromosomal polypliody is a very common occurence, and in many species that it happens in the offspring are fertile.
Flatworms, brine shrimp, and many other animals are polyploids. There is a mammal that is a tetraploid, Red Viscacha Rats (Tympanoctomys barrerae). I could keep going here.
And lets talk about plants... polyploidy is very common in plant species. More than half of plant species are polyploid. Let me give you some homework, go look up "allopolyploidy" and "amphidiploid". If you can't find definitions in language you can understand I'd be happy to elaborate.
Now, when are you going to get back to me on those ERVs and transposition?
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/02/2009 : 04:11:41 [Permalink]
|
Hmm. Still wavin' them hands without resource, I see.
Ok,so how did the fossils of marine life get to the top of Mt. Everest without hiring Sherpas? Very simple: earthquakes. Or at least earthquakes were/are a symptom of the process.
The fundamental cause of the construction of nature's most common buildings - mountains is the movement of plates and their tectonic movements.
While new ocean crust is constantly being created at mid-ocean ridges, old crust must either be destroyed or reduced simultaneously. Otherwise the planet would be continually expanding and increasing in volume. The plates, therefore, emerging along mid-ocean ridges, sliding over the athenosphere, and grinding past other plates along transform faults, are almost all headed on a collision course. When two continents carried on opposing plates ram into each other, they crumple and fold under the enormous pressure, creating great mountain ranges.
The highest mountain range in the world, the snow-capped Himalayas, is a classic example of a continent-to-continent collision. This string of towering peaks is still being thrust up as India, a part of the Indo-Australian Plate, continues to crunch relentlessly into Tibet, which is located on the southern edge of the Eurasian Plate.
When archaeologists found the fossilized remains of ancient sea-creatures near the peaks of the Himalayas they were puzzled. Intriguing questions were raised. Was there once an ocean or other large body of water at the top of this enormous mountain range? Not very likely.
Had the entire planet, Himalayas and all, at some point in Earth's long history, been submerged underwater? Possibly - but highly improbable, since if the water did reach that level, where did it go?. No theory could fully explain this mystery. Until the theory of plate tectonics was put to test.
|
You see, the working phrase here is: "put to the test," and thus far, plate tectonics is the only theory that works. The down side of that for a creationist is that one must concede an old -- 4.6 billion years -- earth. This they will not do; rather they call upon a Bible story that is utter nonsense: God got pissed and drowned the whole lot of his wonderful creation, thereby cutting off his nose to spite his face.
The earth is alive and lively, and has been for a very long time. It is not remarkable to find fossil sea shells on the tops of some mountains; indeed it would be extraordinary if we did not.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 12/02/2009 04:54:47 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/02/2009 : 04:53:04 [Permalink]
|
| Hi H Humbert, no i dont think they didnt notice at all. i think they know full well but because it fly's in the face of evolutionary theory they reject it or ignore it. Scientists of the larger proportion are just like you guys. Die hard evolutionists who will not accept any other theory whether its scientific or not. At the end of the day, Humbert, the Dna Scientists are correct in saying this or they are not. If they are correct, and all data says they are, then evolution has a problem doesn't it. |
Ok matt, here's the deal: Come up with an alternate theory as well supported by the evidence as the Theory of Evolution and I'll have to sit down and think about it. Or better yet, find me that legendary lagomorph, the Devonian Bunny, and I'll chuck the whole thing and never look back. At this writing, no one has been able to do that.
Here's something Creationists fail to understand: We would love to see the ToE debunked. I would love to debunk it! Just think, virtually all of science would be set on it's collective ear; I could demand top dollar on the lecture circuit where I would bore captive audiences to weeping distraction; the Nobel Committee would humbly deliver their prize to my doorstep; and I would date no one but super-models. In short, it would be the greatest scientific discovery since Moby Dick was a minnow and there is not a scientist extant that would'nt jump all over it.
Alas, it ain't happenin'. It's that damned old evidence thing again, don'cha know. Any which way you turn it, it always comes up ToE.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Dennett answers NY Times on Dawkins’ book
Topic Locked
