(April 22, 2014 at 11:29 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Make ya a deal, I'll read that and you read the Bible?

Most of us atheists already have read it and it is precisely having read it that we are atheists.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:26 am)Revelation777 Wrote: I'm hirsute and love bananas but not an ape.

I'm afraid you are. The fact that you are hirsute and (presumably) are bipedal with opposable digits attests to the fact.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:29 am)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 4:02 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Rev, if you're interested in this subject, you might benefit from Don Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters. You can pick up a used copy through Amazon for as little as $15.00. There are other good sources as well; all you have to do is look for them. But please spare us your AIG quote mining. Pond scum rates higher in these parts than Ken Ham and his fellow frauds.

There. You want to be taken seriously? You've just been given a huge, unmistakable hint of how to go about it. You have no further excuse.

Thank you for your recommendation. Make ya a deal, I'll read that and you read the Bible?

I've read the Bible. You're way behind the curve.

(April 21, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: I will do him a favor and mention the Cambrian explosion. Lots of missing links there.

It's obvious that what actually happened is God over-poured his coffee beans and had a sudden burst of design ideas. But how do we explain hybrid zones? Why would God place two different species right next to eachother, and program them to mate with eachother when it would only produce infertile offspring?

Understanding the Cambrian explosion. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ion-causes

---

(April 21, 2014 at 5:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 5:22 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...-creatures

This clearly answers if apes evolved into humans

Just a moment, dear:

Answers in genesis Wrote:By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

So basically, they're lying to you. I mean, at minimum this would mean they aren't an objective source, but since you're talking evolution what this means is that there is a one hundred percent chance that you'll only get disagreement, whether evolution is viable or not.

Try again, and this time, use the words of scientists and not conmen.

Quote:http://www.creationproof.com/id24.html

probably some of this

And again:

These guys Wrote:Our primary goal is that God be glorified, that souls be won for Christ, and that God’s Word be shown to be inerrant and pure, while exposing evolution as an atheistic misrepresentation of earth's and mankind's origin.

How about you post sources that aren't outright biased against the truth, where it contradicts with your favorite story book, Rev. I thought you wanted to be honest about this, and yet here you are still presenting the words of liars as if they were truth.

Just because a source has Christian beliefs doesn't mean that the source should be disregarded. I can do the same with atheistic sources.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:30 am)Kitanetos Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 11:29 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Make ya a deal, I'll read that and you read the Bible?

Most of us atheists already have read it and it is precisely having read it that we are atheists.

Yes, and in fact I've read it thrice, (I can't believe I just used that word...) each time under a slightly different "belief system", asking for God's/the holy spirit's guidance.
And yet here I am today, an atheist.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:32 am)Revelation777 Wrote: because a source has Christian beliefs doesn't mean that the source should be disregarded. I can do the same with atheistic sources.

Forget Christian sources and atheist sources. You're ostensibly talking about science. Try a scientific source. Otherwise, just move on to your next abomination, Argument #2, because you've demonstrated in this thread that you're either a troll or hopelessly ignorant of the theory you think you're arguing against.

(April 21, 2014 at 11:05 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 11:02 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: After he is done nibbling on me bum have him read this...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...fishy-fish

Seriously, do I have to start bopping you on the nose with a rolled up newspaper whenever you do this?

Try using a squirt bottle - it works on my dog.

(April 22, 2014 at 10:43 am)Heywood Wrote: Any being with sufficient intellect can design a "set it and forget it" evolutionary system to produce what ever that being wants.

A "set it and forget it" evolutionary system doesn't have an end goal and if an intelligent designer had homo sapiens as an end goal (which it must have since creationists conclude that humans are God's special creation), "set it and forget it" evolution is not the way to achieve that goal because at any point along the billions of years of "set it and forget it" evolution enough could have changed in the selection pressures that homo sapiens never would have evolved.

Unless you're saying that this designer monkeyed with the environmental and sex-selection pressures enough to keep evolution "on track" to creating homo sapiens, but then it wouldn't be "set it and forget it" evolution, it would be guided evolution - and there's no evidence that evolution is guided by any kind of designer toward any kind of end goal.

Quote:In evolution theory there is something called punctuated equilibrium which proposes most species will exhibit little change for most of their history. The crocodile is a good example. That beast hasn't changed much in the last 250 million years.

Hasn't changed much? Ancient crocs were GIGANTIC compared to today's crocs! Looking at size alone:

Sarcosuchus (from the middle Cretaceous period ~110 million years ago) was +/- 40 ft long and weighed 10-15 tons

Beinosuchus (~80 million years ago) was 33 feet long and was estimated to weigh ~10 tons and were large enough to prey on tyrannosaurs.

Champsosaurus was a cute little 5-foot-long croc that managed to survive the KT extinction.

Crocodylidae represents the modern form of the crocodile and first shows up around 55 million years ago and while there has been local habitat adaptations, this is the croc that "hasn't changed much" - but that's because its selection pressures haven't changed and it's selection pressures that necessitate natural selection imparting change on creatures.

Here are some resources for you to learn about how much crocodiles have changed over the last 250 million years:

(April 22, 2014 at 11:32 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Understanding the Cambrian explosion. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ion-causes

Understanding the Cambrian explosion by people that don't automatically dismiss everything that conflicts with your particular interpretation of the Bible.
http://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion

(April 22, 2014 at 11:32 am)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Coffee Jesus Wrote: I will do him a favor and mention the Cambrian explosion. Lots of missing links there.

It's obvious that what actually happened is God over-poured his coffee beans and had a sudden burst of design ideas. But how do we explain hybrid zones? Why would God place two different species right next to eachother, and program them to mate with eachother when it would only produce infertile offspring?

Understanding the Cambrian explosion. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ion-causes

---

(April 21, 2014 at 5:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Just a moment, dear:


So basically, they're lying to you. I mean, at minimum this would mean they aren't an objective source, but since you're talking evolution what this means is that there is a one hundred percent chance that you'll only get disagreement, whether evolution is viable or not.

Try again, and this time, use the words of scientists and not conmen.


And again:


How about you post sources that aren't outright biased against the truth, where it contradicts with your favorite story book, Rev. I thought you wanted to be honest about this, and yet here you are still presenting the words of liars as if they were truth.

Just because a source has Christian beliefs doesn't mean that the source should be disregarded. I can do the same with atheistic sources.

You speak as if you are so important that what you can do matters. It doesn't. You can be a fool, and you are and have been a fool. You can threaten to be an even greater, more obliviously ignorant, fool than you are now.

Facts will remain what they are, scientific method will reveal what they reveal. They will be what they will be no matter what your bible says, what you think your bible says, and absolutely no one gives or needs to give a shit if, in your idiotic spite, you might chose to be an even bigger bible addled fool than you have already been.

---

(April 22, 2014 at 11:39 am)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Hasn't changed much? Ancient crocs were GIGANTIC compared to today's crocs! Looking at size alone:

Sarcosuchus (from the middle Cretaceous period ~110 million years ago) was +/- 40 ft long and weighed 10-15 tons

Beinosuchus (~80 million years ago) was 33 feet long and was estimated to weigh ~10 tons and were large enough to prey on tyrannosaurs.

Champsosaurus was a cute little 5-foot-long croc that managed to survive the KT extinction.

Crocodylidae represents the modern form of the crocodile and first shows up around 55 million years ago and while there has been local habitat adaptations, this is the croc that "hasn't changed much" - but that's because its selection pressures haven't changed and it's selection pressures that necessitate natural selection imparting change on creatures.

Here are some resources for you to learn about how much crocodiles have changed over the last 250 million years:

He does have a point. Croc lineage certainly spawned many variations for exploring different niches. But they died out. The surviving crocs lineage is a relatively conservative one amongst the croc family.

What is more, next to other lineages that arose at roughly the same time, like true dinosaurs and mammals, even the whole crocodile family is highly conservative by comparison.

If you don't like croc example, you can use the horseshoe crab. That lineage has been conserved for 450 million years.

The problem with Heywood's description is punctuated equilibrium is probably mostly not punctured by spectacular mutations that allows the mutant to ascend the existing wall of the valley, as Heywood suggests. Rather, it is likely mostly punctuated by a whole sale reshaping the topology - ie the ecological environment that has been stable for a long time, and to which existing species have stably adapted, suddenly changed. The walls of the valley may have come down the the floor the valley may have risen up, as it were, and the changed ecology then drove the long stable species to either adapt or perish. They comfortable valley no longer exists, or suddenly merged with other valleys, or had new tributaries valleys suddenly form.

Rev, we have already explained why your links are unreliable and just so you can't use the excuse of not seeing our requests to stop, i'm going to write it in really big text:

Stop linking to answersingenesis! They no nothing of the theories they try to refute. The only way to refute science is with more science. These people do not practice science and neither do you. I repeat: stop posting those links!