Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(August 24, 2010 at 12:42 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: F. Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (Ticknor & Fields, New Haven & New York, 1982), p. 90.
The problem for Darwinians is in trying to find an explanation for the immense number of adaptations and mutations needed to change a small and primitive earthbound mammal, living alongside and dominated by dinosaurs, into a huge animal with a body uniquely shaped so as to be able to swim deep in the oceans, a vast environment previously unknown to mammals . . . all this had to evolve in at most five to ten million years—about the same time as the relatively trivial evolution of the first upright walking apes into ourselves.
I'm amused by how you think 'evolution changed more for some than others is wierd' is the same thing is 'evolution doesn't happen.' Your idea is wrong, but interesting.
(August 24, 2010 at 12:42 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: Evolutionist M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 174.
". . . we must suppose the existence of innumerable collateral branches leading to many unknown types . . . one is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales . . . we are forced to admit with Darwin that in terms of gradual evolution, considering all the collateral branches that must have existed in the crossing of such gaps, the number of transitional species must have been inconceivably great.
Indeed it was inconcievabily great. I find it interesting that you think that because evolutionists find the task of finding all these transitional species to be daunting. We've found them in far greater numbers adn variety than we ever imagined, but it's interesting that you think that.
"Presumably, various physiological mechanisms for handling oxygen debt and lactic acid buildup, as well as the development of blubber for fat storage and for temperature regulation, evolved early, though evidence of the evolutionary history is unavailable."
Indeed it isn't. You can't find fossils with preserved fat. That's why dinosaur body temperature regulation is still a debate issue among archeologists.
Though you've provided interesting quotes, none of them disprove or even make more unlikely the concept of 'macroevolution' as you call it.
(August 24, 2010 at 12:42 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: i perfectly agree with you. But i have brought this up as answer and challenge to TheDarkestOfAngels , which asserts, the theory of evolution, aka the assertion of common ancestry, is a proven fact. So he has here the platform to present the proofs, he asserts he has.
I certainly have. It's certainly easily provable... assuming I don't have to personally demonstrate it, not being a biologist and all, but despite the fact that I've linked several papers on studies doen by actual people working in this field and yet you've come to this conclusion, I can only assume that no proof is going to be good enough.
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925
Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
Min is not attacking you, but is pointing out something that is painfully obvious to the rest of us. We could go through and list various fossils and other pieces of evidence that you will summarily ignore because you've tipped your hand as a creationist. And frankly, in order to be a creationist, you have to have a worldview where you start of with the assumption that the Bible is right.
We can't really have a meaningful conversation if you're going to refuse to accept evidence because it doesn't mesh with your Bible.
Understanding evolution comes from studying it, and we're not your teachers. When we say evolution is a fact, we're are simply stating that change over time has occurred, the fossil evidence proves it. It's also a theory, and this is where many creationists get confused. A theory in science is not the same as a general theory.
Quote:In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]
If you honestly want to understand evolution, we have provided you with a plethora of sources.
Francis Collins, a noted evangelical Christian and head of the Human Genome Project has stated the DNA evidence alone proves evolution and common ancestry is true. I say this to show you that evolution is not solely believed by atheists and many Christians have no problem with it at all.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
Amazing how many religious people end up being obsessed with "absolute certainty." "Absolute certainty" is a fiction-- there is only "reasonable certainty" or... faith.
“Society is not a disease, it is a disaster. What a stupid miracle that one can live in it.” ~ E.M. Cioran
(August 24, 2010 at 1:34 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:
(August 24, 2010 at 12:42 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: F. Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (Ticknor & Fields, New Haven & New York, 1982), p. 90.
The problem for Darwinians is in trying to find an explanation for the immense number of adaptations and mutations needed to change a small and primitive earthbound mammal, living alongside and dominated by dinosaurs, into a huge animal with a body uniquely shaped so as to be able to swim deep in the oceans, a vast environment previously unknown to mammals . . . all this had to evolve in at most five to ten million years—about the same time as the relatively trivial evolution of the first upright walking apes into ourselves.
I'm amused by how you think 'evolution changed more for some than others is wierd' is the same thing is 'evolution doesn't happen.' Your idea is wrong, but interesting.
(August 24, 2010 at 12:42 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: Evolutionist M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 174.
". . . we must suppose the existence of innumerable collateral branches leading to many unknown types . . . one is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales . . . we are forced to admit with Darwin that in terms of gradual evolution, considering all the collateral branches that must have existed in the crossing of such gaps, the number of transitional species must have been inconceivably great.
Indeed it was inconcievabily great. I find it interesting that you think that because evolutionists find the task of finding all these transitional species to be daunting. We've found them in far greater numbers adn variety than we ever imagined, but it's interesting that you think that.
"Presumably, various physiological mechanisms for handling oxygen debt and lactic acid buildup, as well as the development of blubber for fat storage and for temperature regulation, evolved early, though evidence of the evolutionary history is unavailable."
Indeed it isn't. You can't find fossils with preserved fat. That's why dinosaur body temperature regulation is still a debate issue among archeologists.
Though you've provided interesting quotes, none of them disprove or even make more unlikely the concept of 'macroevolution' as you call it.
(August 24, 2010 at 12:42 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: i perfectly agree with you. But i have brought this up as answer and challenge to TheDarkestOfAngels , which asserts, the theory of evolution, aka the assertion of common ancestry, is a proven fact. So he has here the platform to present the proofs, he asserts he has.
I certainly have. It's certainly easily provable... assuming I don't have to personally demonstrate it, not being a biologist and all, but despite the fact that I've linked several papers on studies doen by actual people working in this field and yet you've come to this conclusion, I can only assume that no proof is going to be good enough.
TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:
MIT: No Easy Answers for the Evolution of Human Speech
ok. lets start with this paper. Please quote the part of the paper, which convinced you and gave you unquestionable proof, human speech was due and arose through gradual evolution.
and remember : any answer with explanations like " might be ", " probably ", " guess ", " its supposed " do not consist in proofs, but in guesswork.
(August 24, 2010 at 2:27 pm)Entropist Wrote: Amazing how many religious people end up being obsessed with "absolute certainty." "Absolute certainty" is a fiction-- there is only "reasonable certainty" or... faith.
I absolutely, and totally agree with you.
Quote:"An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity. " Martin Luther King, Jr.
(August 24, 2010 at 12:42 pm)NoGodaloud ? Wrote: Please show absolute and conclusive proof , that the Theory of Evolution is true.
Quote:It always cracks me up when people like you demand "absolute and conclusive proof" that a scientific principle, method or theory is true. But then you turn around and embrace crap that has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Can you show me any "absolute and conclusive proof" that the resurrection is true? A virgin birth? That "Jesus" walked on water? That the Garden of Eden was a real place and Adam and Eve were real people? That the flood of Noah actually happened? I could go on and on...
Quote:i opened this thread as a answer to Thedarkestofangels, which stated :
Quote:
Evidence. Proof. Science has it. Creationism and theism do not.
and give him oportunity to show, his assertion is true.
Then maybe you should send Thedarkestofangels a private message instead of posting a challenge on an open forum.
Now, can you provide "absolute and conclusive proof" that the resurrection ever happened? A virgin birth? Jesus walking on water? If not, then how can you sanctimoniously demand the same for scientific principles and theories? If your standard is "absolute and convincing proof", how can you believe Biblical bullshit that has ZERO proof?
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?
Am I the only one frustrated at having to give these people information that is freely available via google, wikipedia and down the local library.
Can I suggest that nogodaloud go and do some reasearch, then come back and ask more directed questions of things he doesnt understand
After he's looked at the evidence for himself that will take a while because theres a hell of alot of it.
"Its better to show a child how to think than what to think" a Richard Dawkins quote
August 24, 2010 at 3:47 pm (This post was last modified: August 24, 2010 at 3:52 pm by Minimalist.)
He'll merely do his research among creationist shitheads and come back here and post more bullshit such as "don't mention speciation."
Really, guys, we aren't dealing with the sharpest knife in the drawer here.
Quote:Min is not attacking you, but is pointing out something that is painfully obvious to the rest of us.
Actually, El, I AM attacking him and all the other creationist shitheads who've shown up with the same regurgitated bullshit and never seem to learn a fucking thing.
You don't want me to call him an idiot so I've had to get creative.
odcast:: 
