Play "Cards Against Atheist Forums" online now!
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!
Current time: 26th April 2017, 02:09

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Heated debate on evolution with brother
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(20th April 2017, 16:55)DarkerEnergy Wrote: Of course, you could just admit you have no idea what you're talking about, and that you're just repeating shit you read on creationist websites -- that would suffice too.

I have a feeling that most people that accept the neo-Darwin synthesis are also just repeating what they read in high-school textbooks from the internet. I have since learned that many of the pictures and diagrams in my textbooks were either staged or already outdated. Examples include:

Pepper Moth affixed to bark:

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlSF-PDcU3K8pZyuWUsGW...h1_-mudadg]

Embryo Development that glosses over major differences by species:

[Image: similarity.gif]
Reply
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
You're not only a creationist but one of those who grasps at any straw hoping you can take down a theory that has stood for over 150 years if you can just find an i not dotted or a t not crossed? If you were a tenth that skeptical about scripture, you'd be an atheist.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
Reply
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(17th April 2017, 06:08)Tazzycorn Wrote:
(17th April 2017, 02:22)snowtracks Wrote: Nice try with the out-of-context response but doesn't fly. Here's the paragraph - "To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. Several eminent geologists, with Sir R. Murchison at their head, were until recently convinced that we beheld in the organic remains of the lowest Silurian stratum the first dawn of life. Other highly competent judges, as Lyell and E. Forbes, have disputed this conclusion. We should not forget that only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy"

Darwin was thinking that future discoveries would supply the fossil evidence. Recent science models show that out of 182 mathematically possible skeletal designs conceivable for physical life 146 showed up in the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion event per this study - paragraph from it:
"The set of viable design elements available for animals to use in building skeletons has been fully exploited. Analysis of animal skeletons in relation to the multivariate, theoretical “Skeleton Space” has shown that a large proportion of these options are used in each phylum. Here, we show that structural elements deployed in the skeletons of Burgess Shale animals (Middle Cambrian) incorporate 146 of 182 character pairs defined in this morphospace. Within 15 million years of the appearance of crown groups of phyla with substantial hard parts, at least 80 percent of skeletal design elements recognized among living and extinct marine metazoans were exploited".*
Suddenly, in shallow seas and on continental shelves life forms manifesting nearly every conceivable body plan appeared. - for the first time in Earth's history creatures sported appendages, limbs, skeletons and specialized organs.
 
*Evolutionary Exploitation of Design Options by the First Animals with Hard Skeletons R. D. K. Thomas*, Rebecca M. Shearman†, Graham W. Stewart‡ + See all authors and affiliations Science  19 May 2000:Vol. 288, Issue 5...
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/288/5469/1239.full

Tell me snowtracks, why the fuck should I listen to you on evolutionary theory when it is well established both hitherto and in this very post that you don't have the first fucking clue what you're talking about?

The passage you've quoted has done nothing to either disprove evolution (which is, I must stress again, a proven fact, we have seen it both in the lab and in the wild) nor advance your beloved creatardism. Furthermore, the fossil record is the least important and conclusive evidence in favour of evolution and evolutionary theory, we can point to genetic markers present in all living things, mitochondrial DNA and other markers which show our ancestry. We can also point out that all life on this planet shares the one single system for developing new flesh and bones, something that also shows common ancestry. Before you come on here bullshitting me, snowtracks, at least do yourself the favour of learning about what you are dismissing out of hand and without evidence, you little shit.
Well, it looks like someone got up on the wrong-side-of-the-bed. The Avalon and Cambrian era is the 5'th day of Creation, another 'day' in preparation for the purpose of the universe: mankind. Thru mankind, God's works His plan-of-redemption. Angels have freewill and no redemption plan; whereas, humans have freewill and a redemption plan. This is why God rested on the 7'th day ( a period of time wherein people are deciding their eternal destiny: connection or separation with or without God (infinite, eternal, tri-personal).
If God were one and only one person, He could not possess love. But because the triune God did possess and express love before He created anything, He could create love.
Reply
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(21st April 2017, 13:33)snowtracks Wrote: Well, it looks like someone got up on the wrong-side-of-the-bed. The Avalon and Cambrian era is the 5'th day of Creation, another 'day' in preparation for the purpose of the universe: mankind. Thru mankind, God's works His plan-of-redemption. Angels have freewill and no redemption plan; whereas, humans have freewill and a redemption plan. This is why God rested on the 7'th day ( a period of time wherein people are deciding their eternal destiny: connection or separation with or without God (infinite, eternal, tri-personal).

Can you explain to me, again, how would ANYONE know ALL that?
Reply
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(21st April 2017, 08:33)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(20th April 2017, 16:55)DarkerEnergy Wrote: Of course, you could just admit you have no idea what you're talking about, and that you're just repeating shit you read on creationist websites -- that would suffice too.

I have a feeling that most people that accept the neo-Darwin synthesis are also just repeating what they read in high-school textbooks from the internet. I have since learned that many of the pictures and diagrams in my textbooks were either staged or already outdated. Examples include:

Pepper Moth affixed to bark:

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlSF-PDcU3K8pZyuWUsGW...h1_-mudadg]

Embryo Development that glosses over major differences by species:

[Image: similarity.gif]

What did you do, read 'Icons Of Evolution' and think you've figured out some great conspiracy among biologists? The pepper moth is a weak example of evolution to begin with. Mimicry is a good example of natural selection in the animal kingdom. Mimicry has been well documented. Two good examples of it are the mimicry of Coral snakes (that are extremely venomous) and of the Monarch butterfly that is poisonous to birds.

[Image: batesian-mimicry-viceroy-monarch-butterfly.jpeg]

[Image: coral_snake_0.gif]


But don't forget the art of camouflage. The Buckeye butterfly has also been known to have been the result of natural selection, due to the wings resembling the eyes of an that of an owl.

[Image: owl-butterfly-e1288206293717.jpg]

Don't forget Heikegani crab covered by Carl Sagan in his famous series 'Cosmos' where he documented the artificial selection of crabs by humans in releasing those crabs that resembled a samurai warrior to live - resulting in the striking results today.

[Image: Heikegani.jpg]

There you go, there's a few 'icons' of natural selection that are very recent in history, and very much examples of significant evolution. We can go further but my hunch is, you really don't know what you're talking about at all, and it's waste of time to proceed.
Reply
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(21st April 2017, 13:58)DarkerEnergy Wrote: There you go, there's a few 'icons' of natural selection that are very recent in history, and very much examples of significant evolution. We can go further but my hunch is, you really don't know what you're talking about at all, and it's waste of time to proceed.

I go with the consensus opinion of biologists while at the same time recognizing the Neo-Darwin synthesis has been called into question by a group of small but seemingly well-qualified dissenters. I don't have a dog in that fight precisely because I do not feel I have sufficient background knowledge to take a side and it doesn't affect my theology even though I find the extended evolution model fascinating. My point was that many AF proponents of the Neo-Darwin Synthesis relying on obsolete 'icons' or self-serving internet searches every bit as much as the proponents of ID or creationism. Your strident reply suggests as much.
Reply
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(21st April 2017, 13:45)pocaracas Wrote: Can you explain to me, again, how would ANYONE know ALL that?

The voices told him the last time he was off his meds.
Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.
Reply
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(21st April 2017, 15:43)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:
(21st April 2017, 13:58)DarkerEnergy Wrote: There you go, there's a few 'icons' of natural selection that are very recent in history, and very much examples of significant evolution. We can go further but my hunch is, you really don't know what you're talking about at all, and it's waste of time to proceed.

I go with the consensus opinion of biologists while at the same time recognizing the Neo-Darwin synthesis has been called into question by a group of small but seemingly well-qualified dissenters. I don't have a dog in that fight precisely because I do not feel I have sufficient background knowledge to take a side and it doesn't affect my theology even though I find the extended evolution model fascinating. My point was that many AF proponents of the Neo-Darwin Synthesis relying on obsolete 'icons' or self-serving internet searches every bit as much as the proponents of ID or creationism.  Your strident reply suggests as much.
They're not 'icons' bub. These are living examples of natural selection that you have not refuted, or even attempted to incorporate into an alternative scientific theory.

The evidence for evolutionary theory is everywhere - not just the fossil record. DNA sequencing adequately demonstrates the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth, but we also see evidence in the shared proteins that are common to all organisms, from bacteria to animals. The evidence from the protein cytochrome c also demonstrates the thesis of evolution with a varying of amino acids between organisms that is predicted by common ancestry. Don't forget the evidence from retroviruses and human chromosome 2; which was the nail in the coffin of biological typology, and demonstrated our ancestry with chimps beyond a reasonable doubt.

Notice that I haven't even touched the evidence from paleontology. All of the evidence I mentioned is of biochemical nature that biologists use to reconstruct phylogenetic trees, and is airtight for common ancestry. This is not to say we do not also have intermediate forms in the fossil record, because we absolutely do. The evidence for human evolution from ancient hominids is profound, and you'd have to be a fool not to see the evidence -- or just be an intelligent design crank with zero understanding of the theory. From experience I can tell you're the latter, so I won't waste too much more time on you.

[Image: timeline-of-hominid-evolution_517f2065cdb2b_w1500.png]

Please, you have no idea what you're talking about. The biologists that doubt evolutionary theory are nothing short of cranks, and they're not taken seriously by the peers at all; not because they are religious, but because they have zero evidence to support their claims. If you're going to dispute evolution, you need to A)explain the evidence we see biochemically and in the geological record and B)formulate a new scientific paradigm that is predictive and falsifiable, and better explains the evidence.

Stop reading ID books and read some actual biology.
Reply
RE: Heated debate on evolution with brother
(22nd April 2017, 00:16)DarkerEnergy Wrote:
(21st April 2017, 15:43)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

They're not 'icons' bub. These are living examples of natural selection that you have not refuted, or even attempted to incorporate into an alternative scientific theory.


The evidence for evolutionary theory is everywhere  - not just the fossil record.

Only a true series of transitional intermediates in which the fossil record documents both the existence of an original animal form and gradual appearance of the key distinguishing anatomical features novelties would remedy this Cambrian-era explosion deficiency, and yet that is precisely what Precambrian fossil record has failed to document. There should be trillions per square mile of developmental bilaterians (thus showing: heads, eyes, organs, digestion systems, etc.) from the plentiful Precambrian sediments spanning hundreds of millions of years.
I have a feeling these developmental fossils (evolution doesn’t support going from soft tissue directly to fossils without transitionals) will be finally unveiled at the Atheist World Convention, 2017 (https://www.atheists.org/convention2017/), but can’t we just have a sneak preview before then?
Side note: variegated moth wings show micro-evolution; homologies like the 5-digit pattern of the pentadactyl limb reflects the design plan of a creative intelligence. If the bat had 4, the porpoise had 6, the horse had 3, the human had 50, that would better support evolution.
If God were one and only one person, He could not possess love. But because the triune God did possess and express love before He created anything, He could create love.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why Debate a Teenager? Goosebump 16 1327 25th April 2016, 11:10
Last Post: Aegon
  Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false Rob216 206 13212 10th November 2014, 14:02
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  Free Will - A new angle on an old debate ManMachine 3 1110 11th June 2013, 19:22
Last Post: ManMachine
  Flying in the face of the organic debate Justtristo 1 1039 24th April 2013, 21:03
Last Post: Khemikal
  Intelligent design type evolution vs naturalism type evolution. MysticKnight 59 20680 6th April 2013, 17:12
Last Post: Khemikal



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)