Irrefutable Proof of Evolution

[Noir]

As this was brought up in another thread i thought i would post this up for anyone who believes evolution is a hoax or that there is not proof of it,

Two 10 minute videos that prove evolution via Neanderthal DNA, Chromosomal fusion, Retroviral DNA and Summation.

Given this is one of the most important theories (of the the most important) in biology if you believe it does not exist and are not willing to spend 20 minutes of your life dispelling your own ignorance then you are choosing to be blind to science, but i wouldn't think any of you guys would do that.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i1fGkFuHIu0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i1fGkFuHIu0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-CvX_mD5weM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-CvX_mD5weM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Noir]

A 2 minute run though some intermediate fossils

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/o92x6AvxCFg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/o92x6AvxCFg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

But clearly there is no evolution, rather a creator decided he would put some bones in modern day whales where rear legs would be, just to make it look like they use to have rear legs, right?

[PostmodernProphet]

I pay no attention to videos....they can't argue back.....if you want to raise an argument, raise it yourself....

[Noir]

Watch the viedos, the set out the argument, then we can debate it, if you really want i will sit and type the videos out word for word, but it would be easier if you watched the videos and then had an argument about them with me.

[darin]

This is EASY!

"Irrefutable proof of Intelligent Design"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4z0IVivslc

[darin]

Even better, and more to the point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yzgBj8deKE&feature=related

[Noir]

This is EASY!

"Irrefutable proof of Intelligent Design"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4z0IVivslc

...can you please point to a single part of the which refutes evolution? i watched the video with a pen and paper ready to make notes, and the only thing i have written down is "lol"...

Infact, about 7 minutes in, the guy explains how natural selection has caused the birds to evolve to have long beaks, with those with the shorter beaks dying out.

So please, what in that video (give a quote or a time to watch between) is irrefutable proof of ID?

[Noir]

Even better, and more to the point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yzgBj8deKE&feature=related

Right, most of this one was spent talking about freedom (and i had to laugh out loud when Bill mocked the concept of the separation of the church and state, obviously he doesn't consider than important)

The only real point made for ID in there was that of irreducible complexity, i.e. the cell having hundres of thousands of parts that work perfectly. This is an arguement that has been shot down more times that enough. The whole idea of Darwinism is that things start simple, and grow over time to become more and more complex, thats why the earliest living things we can find fossils of are cell organisms, then as you move through time you find more and more complex creatures.

There are other issues in the video i could go into, like 'why not teach both sides' ect, but i want to keep this thread on evolution.

BTW, i don't know what you know of Ben Stein, however, his movie 'Expelled' is a farce, did you know that the kicked PZ Mires out of the first screening of the movie, even though he appeared in it and was thanked in the credits?

And just as a final point, i have watched and addressed what little there was in your videos, care to watch and address mine?

[Missileman]

This is EASY!

"Irrefutable proof of Intelligent Design"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4z0IVivslc

You maybe should have actually watched this video. It makes a very compelling explanation of how evolution works. BTW...WTF is a Philosopher of Biology?

[Noir]

You maybe should have actually watched this video. It makes a very compelling explanation of how evolution works. BTW...WTF is a Philosopher of Biology?

I thought the same :laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

Watch the viedos, the set out the argument, then we can debate it, if you really want i will sit and type the videos out word for word, but it would be easier if you watched the videos and then had an argument about them with me.

well it is your debate.....the alternative is that I have to sit and type out the argument you want to have for you and then type out my response to it.....shall I just type the whole debate for you so you can check in later and see who won?.......

[PostmodernProphet]

http://www.biblegateway.com/
here, tell me what parts you don't like and I will argue it with you....

[BoogyMan]

So, let me get this straight, if we don't agree with your arrogant hogwash we are ignorant?

Trolly moley what a load of garbage.

[PostmodernProphet]

a theory of evolution I agree with...
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:7mKN0uNu68JqHM:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Connecticut-Mourning-Macgillivray_Warblers_NGM-v31-p320-A.jpg/300px-Connecticut-Mourning-Macgillivray_Warblers_NGM-v31-p320-A.jpghttp://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:nMSsM_ldzCgEgM:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3599/3428345029_a53b5e05fa_o.jpghttp://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ys5pgAf0ihEvqM:http://www.kenjanuski.com/Images/2008/canadaWarblersV5.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

a theory of evolution I don't believe in...
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:vU9ETDKyRlGM4M:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3048/3053933851_776b2207d5.jpg
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:aoJWjk4Y8CeDMM:http://www.daviddarling.info/images/muscles_human_body_front.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

so I listened to part of your first video.....I am puzzled.....the video claims to put nails in the coffin of objections to human evolution....it says the first "nail" is the fact that neanderthals and humans are not genetically related......okay.....

I'm waiting to see how that "proves" human evolution......what am I missing?.....

[Noir]

so I listened to part of your first video.....I am puzzled.....the video claims to put nails in the coffin of objections to human evolution....it says the first "nail" is the fact that neanderthals and humans are not genetically related......okay.....

I'm waiting to see how that "proves" human evolution......what am I missing?.....

The first point is the least technical. However, do you not think it is interesting that God made creatures that are like humans, with weapons, music, art ect ect, and their is no mention of it in any creation stories, and they are in no way linked to humans via a genetic link? i.e. they evolved separately. Or did a creator just make some human like creatures with different DNA for some random reason?

The rest of the video is much more technical that the Neanderthal point.


Have any comments on the rest of the videos PMP?

[PostmodernProphet]

The first point is the least technical. However, do you not think it is interesting that God made creatures that are like humans, with weapons, music, art ect ect, and their is no mention of it in any creation stories, and they are in no way linked to humans via a genetic link? i.e. they evolved separately. Or did a creator just make some human like creatures with different DNA for some random reason?

The rest of the video is much more technical that the Neanderthal point.


Have any comments on the rest of the videos PMP?

so let me get this straight....first you wont tell me what your argument is, I have to figure it out by myself.....so then I go in and find out the argument has four parts....I respond to the first one.....instead of debating the first one you say "it doesn't matter, it's just interesting, read another".....

/boggle....

no, I'm not going to read another....argue the first one with me...

how does the existence of neanderthals as NOT the ancestors of humans prove the evolution of humans....why is it a nail in the coffin of creation?......

{this is why I find atheists annoying}

[Noir]

so let me get this straight....first you wont tell me what your argument is, I have to figure it out by myself.....so then I go in and find out the argument has four parts....I respond to the first one.....instead of debating the first one you say "it doesn't matter, it's just interesting, read another".....

/boggle....

no, I'm not going to read another....argue the first one with me...

how does the existence of neanderthals as NOT the ancestors of humans prove the evolution of humans....why is it a nail in the coffin of creation?......

I laid the argument out in video format, rather than text as its easier to digest as a video because the details involved are very complex indeed.

As i said i don't put much weight behind the first point, its more of a moral exercise than anything else. It is the other 3 points, that deal with specific genetic coding that proves evolution that really matters.

I can understand if you do not want to discuss them, just admit it rather than pretending you care so much about the first point.

[PostmodernProphet]

I laid the argument out in video format, rather than text as its easier to digest as a video because the details involved are very complex indeed.

As i said i don't put much weight behind the first point, its more of a moral exercise than anything else. It is the other 3 points, that deal with specific genetic coding that proves evolution that really matters.

I can understand if you do not want to discuss them, just admit it rather than pretending you care so much about the first point.

I'm not even going to listen to them until you debate the first, or at least admit that 25% of your argument sucks ass.....I expect if I wasted my time responding to the second I would just hear, Oh, that isn't the best one, try again....

[PostmodernProphet]

I laid the argument out in video format

and let's be perfectly clear....you cut and pasted a video.....you have put ZERO effort into this thread so far.....and you were the one who started it....

[PostmodernProphet]

rather than pretending you care so much about the first point.

hey, it was YOUR first point.....don't lay this off as being about ME not caring about it, why don't YOU care about it?......

[KarlMarx]

"The first point is the least technical. However, do you not think it is interesting that God made creatures that are like humans, with weapons, music, art ect ect, and their is no mention of it in any creation stories, and they are in no way linked to humans via a genetic link? i.e. they evolved separately. Or did a creator just make some human like creatures with different DNA for some random reason?

The rest of the video is much more technical that the Neanderthal point."

According to Genesis - God created Man in His own image on the 6th day. Before the 6th day, He created the animals. Neantherdals are not genetically linked to us, therefore, they were created on the 5th day. Now, the Hebrew word for "day" can also mean "age".

Isn't it true that Modern Man did not appear on the scene until about 50,000 years ago? This would indicate that the 6th "day" occured around then. So, how does that contradict evolution?

Also, doesn't evolution presume the existence of a steady state Earth? That is, that there were no cosmic cataclysms, no collapse of the magnetic field,etc that may have influenced the course of life on Earth. Perhaps it was those things that influenced the course of evolution rather than natural selection.

I also want to ask that, if evolution is still occuring, then why don't we see slight differences between us and the mummies of Ancient Egypt? After all, they are over 3,000 years old... so *something* must have changed!

The problem with evolutionists is this. First, you want us to concede that evolution is true, then you will go on to attack the existence of God Himself. You will probably say we are an "accident". Well, OK, if you want to believe that, fine. As for me... I will believe in God.

[Sitarro]

Anyone that is involved in design or any other creative field would have to find that the our wonderful world and every amazing creature on it couldn't have possibly been an accident. The differences between the big cats alone would have to make you think that evolution is just too simplistic of a theory. The cheetah compared to the snow leopard to the lion to the tiger to the house cat..... all just accidents, sure, I can buy that.

I'm curious, why haven't apes evolved any further than they have? If we supposedly evolved from them, wouldn't they be a little further along than they are? If you want to have some real fun Noir, go get into a discussion with a bunch of black guys about how they came from chimps, they aren't sensitive to that idea at all, I'm sure you ill get some stimulating reactions.:laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

and of course there are many unexplained references in scripture....

Genesis 6
1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

and some from the apocrypha....
Enoch 6
And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters.'

'And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.'

[Noir]

I'm not even going to listen to them until you debate the first, or at least admit that 25% of your argument sucks ass.....I expect if I wasted my time responding to the second I would just hear, Oh, that isn't the best one, try again....

:laugh2:

Thats okay, run and hide from the other 3, over the next week or two i will develop 3 other topics to cover the other three points in my own words, and then post them up as new topics, and we can discuss them in there one at a time. Because it is clear that in this topic you do not want to talk about them, and if you had rebuttals to them you would not hesitate to throw them out there.

As i have said, the first point raises the question of what it is to be human, i mean, these creatures who were in no way biologically human could make music, art, tools, and buried there dead ect, don't you think thats important, and that if a creator had made them it would of been mentioned?

[Noir]

According to Genesis - God created Man in His own image on the 6th day. Before the 6th day, He created the animals. Neantherdals are not genetically linked to us, therefore, they were created on the 5th day. Now, the Hebrew word for "day" can also mean "age".

Isn't it true that Modern Man did not appear on the scene until about 50,000 years ago? This would indicate that the 6th "day" occured around then. So, how does that contradict evolution?

So you only consider nerandertals animals?


Also, doesn't evolution presume the existence of a steady state Earth? That is, that there were no cosmic cataclysms, no collapse of the magnetic field,etc that may have influenced the course of life on Earth. Perhaps it was those things that influenced the course of evolution rather than natural selection.

No it does not, infact evolution has been shaped by cataclysms.


I also want to ask that, if evolution is still occuring, then why don't we see slight differences between us and the mummies of Ancient Egypt? After all, they are over 3,000 years old... so *something* must have changed!

Evolution is a slow process, however there are differences, that is evident i physiological differences between humans of different nations. However, humans are ofcourse a special case aswell, when we are in a climate that is two cold, we do not start to develop furry coats via natural selection, we just kill some animals and take their fur coats, i have no idea what effect that will have on human evolution.


The problem with evolutionists is this. First, you want us to concede that evolution is true, then you will go on to attack the existence of God Himself. You will probably say we are an "accident". Well, OK, if you want to believe that, fine. As for me... I will believe in God.

I don't know why people think that god and evolution must be mutually exclusive, i don't see why that would be so. However, people do think that, therefore for them all we need to do is prove evolution to disprove god, as Dawkins said 'The churches have already done half the job for us'

[Noir]

Anyone that is involved in design or any other creative field would have to find that the our wonderful world and every amazing creature on it couldn't have possibly been an accident. The differences between the big cats alone would have to make you think that evolution is just too simplistic of a theory. The cheetah compared to the snow leopard to the lion to the tiger to the house cat..... all just accidents, sure, I can buy that.

I'm curious, why haven't apes evolved any further than they have? If we supposedly evolved from them, wouldn't they be a little further along than they are? If you want to have some real fun Noir, go get into a discussion with a bunch of black guys about how they came from chimps, they aren't sensitive to that idea at all, I'm sure you ill get some stimulating reactions.:laugh2:

Natural selection is no an accident, it is a natural process.

As for your second point, this is a common question, which comes from a lack of understanding of the evolutionary line, we are not descended from any modern day apes, but from a common ancestor, which is explained in two minutes here
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wh0F4FBLJRE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wh0F4FBLJRE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[PostmodernProphet]

:laugh2:

Thats okay, run and hide from the other 3

you see, this is why I find atheists so annoying.....I try to cut you some slack Noir, because you have the guts to hang around this board and debate.....but don't try this shit with me....I bent over backwards trying to engage you in debate on this thread even to the point of trying to decide what your argument was when you wouldn't state it yourself......don't pretend now that I am the one running and hiding when you won't so much as respond to what I have posted so far.....either do so or suck it up and surrender....

[PostmodernProphet]

As i have said, the first point raises the question of what it is to be human, i mean, these creatures who were in no way biologically human could make music, art, tools, and buried there dead ect, don't you think thats important, and that if a creator had made them it would of been mentioned?

to the point it proves evolution of the human race is true and creation is false, not in the least......

[Noir]

Well thats the first neg rep i've got in a long time pmp, how silly, also you will notice that i did answer you on the Neanderthal question in this thread, and infact on of very post you reped me for. But no need to be childish about it, i've already said i will make other threads about the other 75% of the video that you won't talk about. I look forward to seeing your replies in those,


you see, this is why I find atheists so annoying.....I try to cut you some slack Noir, because you have the guts to hang around this board and debate.....but don't try this shit with me....I bent over backwards trying to engage you in debate on this thread even to the point of trying to decide what your argument was when you wouldn't state it yourself......don't pretend now that I am the one running and hiding when you won't so much as respond to what I have posted so far.....either do so or suck it up and surrender....

I do not need you or anyone else to cut me slack sir, I would hardly say watching 2 10 minute videos is bending over backwards, but each to their own i guess.

Now, back on track,


to the point it proves evolution of the human race is true and creation is false, not in the least......

To a large extent i agree with you. It is important in a moral sense, and raises interesting questions, but by itself i do not see it as being hugely important to evolution (maybe i am missing the significance of that point though, which is quite possible as i have not looked into that in depth.)

So, with that covered, would you like to move on to area two of the video?

[glockmail]

You've got a lot of faith in this atheist thing. Awesome. :dev:

[PostmodernProphet]

Noir having experienced a major fail on Nail #1, lets see how he does on Nail #2...

this argument is the fused chromosome.....the video begins by saying humans have two fewer chromosomes than other primates and that if we cannot find an explanation for this then the theory of evolution has been proved wrong.....then it states that the missing chromosomes are found because of a fused chromosome i the human genetic pattern.....the video's argument stops there, somehow assuming that they have proven their case....

however, there is no reverse function of the initial argument.....it may be true that if the missing chromosomes could not be found it would disprove the theory that humans and primates evolved from a common ancestor.....but the fact that it is found does not prove that theory.....

if an intelligent designer can create a DNA that functions in single cell organisms as well as complex ones, why would it be necessary for him to completely redesign a control system when creating a different creature.....

today you can find elements of Microsoft designed operating systems in everything from mainframe computers to toasters......so they share a common ancestor?.....yes......did they evolve in a Darwinian fashion from that common ancestor?....no, they were created, specifically and intentionally by an intelligent designer to function according to his intent.....

Nail #2 is rather tacky......lets see if you can do better on this one than you did the last, Noir....

[Noir]

You've got a lot of faith in this atheist thing. Awesome. :dev:

You have clearly not watched the videos, as they contain scientific PROOF via Retroviral DNA, gene sequencing, Chromosomal fusion, and the summation of dozens of fields of science.
The theory of evolution is as much a fact as the theory of gravity, but for some reason religions don't like evolution though they do accept other science theories that have been proven to the same extent.

[PostmodernProphet]

Well thats the first neg rep i've got in a long time pmp,

you deserved it for trying to accuse me of running on a thread you refused to debate on.....

[PostmodernProphet]

You have clearly not watched the videos, as they contain scientific PROOF via Retroviral DNA, gene sequencing, Chromosomal fusion, and the summation of dozens of fields of science.
The theory of evolution is as much a fact as the theory of gravity, but for some reason religions don't like evolution though they do accept other science theories that have been proven to the same extent.

they had better do a whole lot better than they have done so far if you want to call them "proof"....what I have seen so far isn't enough to convince a butcher he ought to buy a side of beef......

[glockmail]

You have clearly not watched the videos, as they contain scientific PROOF via Retroviral DNA, gene sequencing, Chromosomal fusion, and the summation of dozens of fields of science.
The theory of evolution is as much a fact as the theory of gravity, but for some reason religions don't like evolution though they do accept other science theories that have been proven to the same extent.

I see more proof that God designed all that. Inventors go through various prototypes before settling on a specific design, then work to improve upon it and make various changes both good and bad.

[Noir]

Noir having experienced a major fail on Nail #1, lets see how he does on Nail #2...

this argument is the fused chromosome.....the video begins by saying humans have two fewer chromosomes than other primates and that if we cannot find an explanation for this then the theory of evolution has been proved wrong.....then it states that the missing chromosomes are found because of a fused chromosome i the human genetic pattern.....the video's argument stops there, somehow assuming that they have proven their case....

however, there is no reverse function of the initial argument.....it may be true that if the missing chromosomes could not be found it would disprove the theory that humans and primates evolved from a common ancestor.....but the fact that it is found does not prove that theory.....

if an intelligent designer can create a DNA that functions in single cell organisms as well as complex ones, why would it be necessary for him to completely redesign a control system when creating a different creature.....

today you can find elements of Microsoft designed operating systems in everything from mainframe computers to toasters......so they share a common ancestor?.....yes......did they evolve in a Darwinian fashion from that common ancestor?....no, they were created, specifically and intentionally by an intelligent designer to function according to his intent.....

Nail #2 is rather tacky......lets see if you can do better on this one than you did the last, Noir....

Righto, well its good to see off the bat that you are not questioning the science (as allot of folks like to do around points like this)

The point is that there need of been no redesign at all, we would function exactly the same with the chromosomes separate. But the 2 EXACT chromosomes, from base pairs 114,455,823 to 114,455,838 have been fused in our ancestors past

The only way you can explain this with a creator is that the creator wanted it too as if we did have a common ancestor. Do you think thats what the creator had in mind? Does not that seem deceptive?

Every time evolution is presented with a problem that could kill it stone dead, its predictions come through. It would only take one fossil out of millions to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, one set of genetic code to not match up with predictions, (in this case) 2 Chromosomes not fussed in the right way at the right place, and evolution would be proven wrong, and yet the more we find, the stronger the case gets.

[Noir]

I see more proof that God designed all that. Inventors go through various prototypes before settling on a specific design, then work to improve upon it and make various changes both good and bad.

God can make mistakes? I don't hear that often.

[glockmail]

God can make mistakes? I don't hear that often. He made you didn't he?

[Noir]

He made you didn't he?

Oh, what wit :laugh2:

Now be off with you, unless you have anything of merit to contribute to the debate.

[PostmodernProphet]

But the 2 EXACT chromosomes, from base pairs 114,455,823 to 114,455,838 have been fused in our ancestors past


I believe you may be missing something here.....we have a fused pair of chromosomes.....this results in our having two less chromosomes than primates.....whichever chromosome had happened to be "fused" would have been the "exact" base pair, neh?......

there is no significance about this being the pair that is fused, nor does it somehow lend more credence to the argument that it's just "shit just happens" instead of "intelligently designed"......

[PostmodernProphet]

The only way you can explain this with a creator is that the creator wanted it too

du'h.....it certainly would be odd to argue it would have happened if he didn't want it to.....


Do you think thats what the creator had in mind?

there may be many reasons.....primarily, perhaps the fusion is step he needed to take to cause his program to produce "humans".....when you boil everything else away the difference between the claim that humans evolved in a Darwinian fashion instead of being created is simply this.....did it happen over eons in a trial and error fashion and simply end up where it did in serendipity......or was it made to happen, in which case it could have happened in a single gestation or it could have happened over a period of time....the key isn't how, the key is whether.....

[glockmail]

Oh, what wit :laugh2:

Now be off with you, unless you have anything of merit to contribute to the debate.That wasn't a joke. Look at any deformed kid and its obvious that God makes mistakes, or what some see as mistakes. Others call them tests, sort of a cross for that individual to bear. Yours is closed-mindedness. What that individual does with the cross determines his final outcome. If that outcome is heaven, then the cross is turned in for perfection, and if not...

[PostmodernProphet]

It would only take one fossil out of millions to be in the wrong place at the wrong time
lol, you've never read Forbidden Archeology, have you.....there have been tens of thousands of fossils found in the wrong place at the wrong time.....

[PostmodernProphet]

evolution would be proven wrong, and yet the more we find, the stronger the case gets

if that's all it takes the existence of God is a sure thing.....I can't imagine all the times seculars thought they had proven God didn't exist......

[Noir]

I believe you may be missing something here.....we have a fused pair of chromosomes.....this results in our having two less chromosomes than primates.....whichever chromosome had happened to be "fused" would have been the "exact" base pair, neh?......

there is no significance about this being the pair that is fused, nor does it somehow lend more credence to the argument that it's just "shit just happens" instead of "intelligently designed"......

...If we have 2 fused chromosomes, where we have chrom 2 all other apes have 2 and (i think its) 14. If we did not have 2 and 14 fussed we would be fine, as it happens they are.If there were anything else like a chromasome not found in other apes, without the exact genetic coding then it would prove evolution wrong, as it happens we do have the exact coding.

And if you accept that chromosomes can fuse in nature to create new ones, you are accepting evolution.

[PostmodernProphet]

so, at best #2 shows that evolution hasn't been disproven, but it takes us nowhere in the direction of proving that creation didn't happen....are we agreed or do you still want to flail around a bit.....

[PostmodernProphet]

And if you accept that chromosomes can fuse in nature to create new ones, you are accepting evolution.
see post #14.....

[Noir]

du'h.....it certainly would be odd to argue it would have happened if he didn't want it to.....

It would not be odd, its only odd if you believe that a creator designed everything in their image. If you follow evolution its perfectly natural and expected.


there may be many reasons.....primarily, perhaps the fusion is step he needed to take to cause his program to produce "humans".....when you boil everything else away the difference between the claim that humans evolved in a Darwinian fashion instead of being created is simply this.....did it happen over eons in a trial and error fashion and simply end up where it did in serendipity......or was it made to happen, in which case it could have happened in a single gestation or it could have happened over a period of time....the key isn't how, the key is whether.....

Ah, maybe this is where the Neanderthal card comes into play, that step was needed to make humans, and yet what separates us from Neanderthals? Allot biologically, but little physically and mentally.

And anyway, its a creator, it can do anything it wants, why chose to do something that will make it look like things evolved?

[Noir]

lol, you've never read Forbidden Archeology, have you.....there have been tens of thousands of fossils found in the wrong place at the wrong time.....

No, i have not, i shall do some research on the book.

[OldMercsRule]

[QUOTE=Noir;415874]As this was brought up in another thread i thought i would post this up for anyone who believes evolution is a hoax or that there is not proof of it,

Two 10 minute videos that prove evolution via Neanderthal DNA, Chromosomal fusion, Retroviral DNA and Summation.

Given this is one of the most important theories (of the the most important) in biology if you believe it does not exist and are not willing to spend 20 minutes of your life dispelling your own ignorance then you are choosing to be blind to science, but i wouldn't think any of you guys would do that.

QUOTE]

Great video's Noir, Thank You for posting them, that was a very corncise presentation. :thumb:

Although recent dna sequencing, (the human genome was sequenced in 1999), has greatly helped us understand life on Earth, this theory does not disprove the theory of intelligent design. :eek:

I actually think it makes it more likely.

Anyone who goes out on a dark night and marvels at the obvious order of the universe can't help butt ponder how such a well ordered structure from the tiniest particals to life itself cums from random chaos.

Respectfully, JR

[Noir]

so, at best #2 shows that evolution hasn't been disproven, but it takes us nowhere in the direction of proving that creation didn't happen....are we agreed or do you still want to flail around a bit.....

Not only does it prove predictions made by evolution. It shows that if there is a Creator, then the creator has gone out of their way to make it look like evolution is happens, and yeah i wouldn't be too ashamed if i was being fooled by a god.

[Noir]

Great video's Noir, Thank You for posting them, that was a very corncise presentation. :thumb:

Although recent dna sequencing, (the human genome was sequenced in 1999), has greatly helped us understand life on Earth, this theory does not disprove the theory of intelligent design. :eek:

I actually think it makes it more likely.

Anyone who goes out on a dark night and marvels at the obvious order of the universe can't help butt ponder how such a well ordered structure from the tiniest particals to life itself cums from random chaos.

Respectfully, JR

You are bringing to the floor the issue of complexity, i.e. we are to complex not to have been created, i have talked about this in other threads, i will put a link to that here.

Better than that, here was a short video i made for another website to start a discussion on the complexity issue, the examples raised point to the kind of thing you think, and the question raised is one i would like to hear your answer to - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAyb-BVh_b4

[Gaffer]

That wasn't a joke. Look at any deformed kid and its obvious that God makes mistakes, or what some see as mistakes. Others call them tests, sort of a cross for that individual to bear. Yours is closed-mindedness. What that individual does with the cross determines his final outcome. If that outcome is heaven, then the cross is turned in for perfection, and if not...

So your just handed a disability and you are expected to deal with it and if you don't deal with it as a wonderful person you go to eternal punishment. That sure sounds like a fair and loving god too me. Here's your three ton cross, carry it proudly, you can thank me for it later.

Our character and personalities are shaped by our experiences.

[glockmail]

So your just handed a disability and you are expected to deal with it and if you don't deal with it as a wonderful person you go to eternal punishment. That sure sounds like a fair and loving god too me. Here's your three ton cross, carry it proudly, you can thank me for it later.

Our character and personalities are shaped by our experiences.

Most folks with disabilities handle it quite well, along with their caregivers.

[OldMercsRule]

You are bringing to the floor the issue of complexity, i.e. we are to complex not to have been created, i have talked about this in other threads, i will put a link to that here.

Better than that, here was a short video i made for another website to start a discussion on the complexity issue, the examples raised point to the kind of thing you think, and the question raised is one i would like to hear your answer to - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAyb-BVh_b4

I can't hear the video.

Since it is only two minutes why not just state your posiition?

Complexity is part of the intelligent design issue, as chaos from inception begats more chaos.

Order does cum from somewhere. JR

[PostmodernProphet]

its only odd if you believe that a creator designed everything in their image

unless you have been careless with your research you are aware that isn't what Christianity teaches about creation.....



Ah, maybe this is where the Neanderthal card comes into play, that step was needed to make humans
does that not contradict your point about Neanderthals?.....that science shows they are not related to humans?.....better to ask, how does evolution explain the fact that there are no lines of beings that are NOT DNA based.....why, as conditions changed over the years, did we not see competing life forms spring up....even unsuccessfully, and leave fossil remains?......




And anyway, its a creator, it can do anything it wants, why chose to do something that will make it look like things evolved?

the answer is simple....they don't look like they evolved....that is simply the assumption that those who don't want to accept the existence of God have been left with after they reject the simplest explanations.....

[Noir]

I can't hear the video.

Since it is only two minutes why not just state your posiition?

Complexity is part of the intelligent design issue, as chaos from inception begats more chaos.

Order does cum from somewhere. JR

Gah, sorry bout the sound,

I found the thread http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=25219

[PostmodernProphet]

It shows that if there is a Creator, then the creator has gone out of their way to make it look like evolution is happens
????....so, one possible explanation of why God created the way he did is that it was the easiest way to achieve the results that he wanted to achieve (a simple nudge of one chromosome pair)......another is that he desired to deceive the poor atheists so they wouldn't fall in to the trap of believing in him.....

Occam's Razor, anyone?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

a short video

do we have the facepalm icon?.....

[Noir]

????....so, one possible explanation of why God created the way he did is that it was the easiest way to achieve the results that he wanted to achieve (a simple nudge of one chromosome pair)......another is that he desired to deceive the poor atheists so they wouldn't fall in to the trap of believing in him.....

Occam's Razor, anyone?.....

But if the chromosomes had of stayed separate there would of been no change, other that our chromosome count.

Think of it as a train carriage. with two people sat in opposite seats, if one of them moves to occupy a seat beside another on nothing changes, they will still both arrive at their destination at the same time to go and do whatever they want to.
However, once you open the door to natural chromosomal fusion, you open the door to evolution

As for Occams Razor, i had not heard of it before so i looked it up, it is

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

The simplest solution is usually the correct one, now are you trying to tell me that a God is the simplest solution you can think of?

You are arguing as predicted, 'The creator did it' if it looks like evolution 'the creator wanted it to be the way it was' and no matter what you apply that to, like the 3rd area of the video ERV's, you can say the same, the creator just wanted it to be that way, to look like evolution, but there is no evolution.

Let me put your logic to another scientific theory, that of Gravity. Imagine there is another user on the board and they say 'Gravity is not caused my mass creating warps in space time, but by my god pushing down on everything with varying pressures' No matter what scientific proof you presented to him showing that the theory of space time warp explains everything perfectly without the need for divine interference, and that all experiments go as predicted with the model, and they said 'Yes, but thats the way my god wants it to look, the more evidence you find, the clearer it is to me that it is my god that is at work'. How exactly would you argue with an idiot like that?

Now compare the theory of gravity and evolution, and your answers and his. You're only defence to whatever science finds is 'that's what the creator wanted' quite silly, no?

[PostmodernProphet]

The simplest solution is usually the correct one, now are you trying to tell me that a God is the simplest solution you can think of?
one intentional act versus a multitude of coincidental fortuitous random events?......yes.....

[PostmodernProphet]

However, once you open the door to natural chromosomal fusion, you open the door to evolution
if you start with the assumption it was a random spontaneous event you end with the conclusion it was a random spontaneous event.......no doors were opened no conclusions were reached.....you still have the same frame of mind you started with.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Now compare the theory of gravity and evolution, and your answers and his. You're only defence to whatever science finds is 'that's what the creator wanted' quite silly, no?

not at all....actually, I find "shit just happens the way it happens" to be both unscientific and silly......

[PostmodernProphet]

I am still waiting for something that will show fused chromosomes disprove creation.....I have to be in court all afternoon.....perhaps tonight I will accept your concession and take a look at the third argument.....

[Noir]

one intentional act versus a multitude of coincidental fortuitous random events?......yes.....

On intentional act from an impossibly complex creature that is, there is nothing simple about that.


if you start with the assumption it was a random spontaneous event you end with the conclusion it was a random spontaneous event.......no doors were opened no conclusions were reached.....you still have the same frame of mind you started with.....

Do you accept that the chromosomes have been fused? Or do you deny that?


not at all....actually, I find "shit just happens the way it happens" to be both unscientific and silly......

But thats the thing shit does not just happen, there is order to it, that is why there is the word 'selection' in 'natural selection'
So tell me, do you believe that god is putting pressure on everything, giving meaning the mass of a body experiences gravity, or do you believe in the scientific theory that mass causes a curve in space time?


I am still waiting for something that will show fused chromosomes disprove creation.....I have to be in court all afternoon.....perhaps tonight I will accept your concession and take a look at the third argument.....

I am not trying to disprove creation, i am trying to prove evolution. I can understand it when people accept both god and evolution, i don't see how the two contradict eachother, however, many religions dislike evolution and teach that its either a creator or evolution. Which makes it much easier for atheist, because you can prove evolution scientifically as you can Gravity and other facts of nature.

You are the one that seems to think that God and Evolution can not co-exist, why is that?

[PostmodernProphet]

On intentional act from an impossibly complex creature that is, there is nothing simple about that.

1) why "impossibly complex"
2) why do you refer to him as a "creature" when he wasn't "created"....



Do you accept that the chromosomes have been fused? Or do you deny that?

haven't you presented scientific evidence of it?.....are you tipping me off that the video's claim is unsupported by scientific evidence?.....after all, I am taking the word of the guy in the video, I haven't verified it myself.....



But thats the thing shit does not just happen, there is order to it, that is why there is the word 'selection' in 'natural selection'
I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true under Darwinian evolution....external forces cause lines to die out, new ones to emerge....it is chaotic and random....if that is the way you are reading "selection" it is a misnomer.....under your approach it is nothing more than the roll of a dice.....some nocturnal carnivore can't sleep, heads out a few minutes earlier than normal and a superior race of daytime dwellers becomes extinct in a single mouthful.......



So tell me, do you believe that god is putting pressure on everything, giving meaning the mass of a body experiences gravity, or do you believe in the scientific theory that mass causes a curve in space time?
????.....of course God is putting pressure on everything....by creating a universe in which gravity occurs naturally......

[PostmodernProphet]

I am not trying to disprove creation, i am trying to prove evolution. I can understand it when people accept both god and evolution, i don't see how the two contradict each other, however, many religions dislike evolution and teach that its either a creator or evolution. Which makes it much easier for atheist, because you can prove evolution scientifically as you can Gravity and other facts of nature.

You are the one that seems to think that God and Evolution can not co-exist, why is that?

I can't imagine where I got that impression...

Not only does it prove predictions made by evolution. It shows that if there is a Creator, then the creator has gone out of their way to make it look like evolution is happens, and yeah i wouldn't be too ashamed if i was being fooled by a god.

be that as it may you have made a transition in your argument.....the issue isn't whether God and evolution can co-exist, the issue is whether creation and evolution can co-exist....

see post #14, that understanding of evolution and creation can co exist.......see post #15....that understanding of evolution and creation cannot co-exist....

[Noir]

1) why "impossibly complex"

Something which is omnipotent is impossibly complex. Unless you are saying there can be creatures more complex than a god?


2) why do you refer to him as a "creature" when he wasn't "created"....

Everything that exists has to of been created at some point. Thats the problem with any God theory, all you can say is that the god has existed forever, and then you mock science, which is trying to find scientific answers to questions like where did everything come from.


haven't you presented scientific evidence of it?.....are you tipping me off that the video's claim is unsupported by scientific evidence?.....after all, I am taking the word of the guy in the video, I haven't verified it myself.....

Yes i have, i'm just making sure you believe the science. Good to see you accept that Chromosomes can fuse, creating new species. Thats a fundamental pillar of evolution.


I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true under Darwinian evolution....external forces cause lines to die out, new ones to emerge....it is chaotic and random....if that is the way you are reading "selection" it is a misnomer.....under your approach it is nothing more than the roll of a dice.....some nocturnal carnivore can't sleep, heads out a few minutes earlier than normal and a superior race of daytime dwellers becomes extinct in a single mouthful.......

It is not chaotic and random. Yes the mutations are random, however, once a mutation occurs it will be put through the process of nature, the more useful the mutation, the more likely it will be passed on to successive generations. if you are finding that difficult to understand i have a multitude of videos explaining how wings and eyes have developed in different animals via natural selection. It also blows the wind out of the 'irreducibly complex' crowd, who assume everything must of suddenly worked all at once or it never would of worked.



????.....of course God is putting pressure on everything....by creating a universe in which gravity occurs naturally......

You are playing with words. The choice was gravity is naturally occurring when mass dents space time, or that god is choosing to 'lean a little' on every single particle, the more the mass the more he leans, meaning that whatever we measure it will look like the mass is causing a dent in space time, when really the mass has nothing to do with it, its just god.
So which is it to be? Mass, or god making it look like mass?


I can't imagine where I got that impression...

So you think that both God and evolution can co-exist? (Not just micro-evolution but macro-evolution aswell?)


be that as it may you have made a transition in your argument.....the issue isn't whether God and evolution can co-exist, the issue is whether creation and evolution can co-exist....

No i have not, look at the topic title, this thread was made to prove evolution, i don't care what that does to any God/Creator argument, its the religions that have made it a God/Creator argument by believing you can not have one with the other.
But, given you prefer the word creator to god, do you believe micro/macro evolution can exist with creation?


see post #14, that understanding of evolution and creation can co exist.......see post #15....that understanding of evolution and creation cannot co-exist....

Why not?
Does that mean if evolution in post 15 is proven that creation is disproven? (i do not think that is so, but if you think they can not co-exist i guess you do)

[PostmodernProphet]

Everything that exists has to of been created at some point.
what an absurd assumption....




Yes i have, i'm just making sure you believe the science. Good to see you accept that Chromosomes can fuse, creating new species. Thats a fundamental pillar of evolution.
I have always believed in science.....I just don't believe in what seculars pretend about science....




It is not chaotic and random. Yes the mutations are random, however, once a mutation occurs it will be put through the process of nature, the more useful the mutation, the more likely it will be passed on to successive generations.

I am puzzled why you cannot see that your theory requires it to be chaotic and random.....for your system to function it requires that the processes of nature have changed, otherwise there would be no need to adapt.....without design that change must be random and without order.....



if you are finding that difficult to understand i have a multitude of videos explaining how wings and eyes have developed in different animals via natural selection. It also blows the wind out of the 'irreducibly complex' crowd, who assume everything must of suddenly worked all at once or it never would of worked.
bullshit....it may blow wind, but not in the way you imagine....





You are playing with words. The choice was gravity is naturally occurring when mass dents space time, or that god is choosing to 'lean a little' on every single particle, the more the mass the more he leans, meaning that whatever we measure it will look like the mass is causing a dent in space time, when really the mass has nothing to do with it, its just god.
So which is it to be? Mass, or god making it look like mass?

if by playing with words you mean communicating, yes....I am.....are you being dense or joking.....it isn't "mass or god making it look like mass"....it's god employing mass as he intended the system to work.....when an engineer designs an automobile engine is he required to run alongside the engine and spin it instead of using the gasoline it is designed to utilize?......




So you think that both God and evolution can co-exist? (Not just micro-evolution but macro-evolution aswell?)


evolution without control by an intelligent designer is a denial of God......there is no doubt that God claims to be the creator......to reject him in that role is a rejection of God....



Why not?
Does that mean if evolution in post 15 is proven that creation is disproven? (i do not think that is so, but if you think they can not co-exist i guess you do)

evolution as you understand it is not compatible with the concept of creation......your form of evolution requires millenia simply because it has no basis other than random chance......creation requires one intentional act.....to think that a deity would require a million chances to get it right certainly reflects poorly upon the power of the deity......

[Noir]

what an absurd assumption....

Do you have evidence of anything that has existed without having first not existed? You see thats a clincher, infinite regress, it doesn't fit into your god model, and thus is 'absurd' why is it absurd? Because your faith (i.e. belief without evidence) tells you its absurd.


I have always believed in science.....I just don't believe in what seculars pretend about science....

So if i may bring in area 4 of the video, summation, and how many dozens of different and independent fields of science all link into each other perfectly and follow the pattern predicted by Darwin many years before some of these felids even came onto existence.
Do you believe in that science?


I am puzzled why you cannot see that your theory requires it to be chaotic and random.....for your system to function it requires that the processes of nature have changed, otherwise there would be no need to adapt.....without design that change must be random and without order.....

Mutations are random, the process by which the mutations are tested is not, it is ruthlessly efficient. Those with inefficient/wasteful mutinous will die out, those with more efficient/helpful mutations will prosper.
And ofcourse nature is changing, we are on a cooling planet. The planet today will look very different to what it was a few million years ago, would you not agree?



bullshit....it may blow wind, but not in the way you imagine....

So what, you believe in irreducible complexity aswell? If so i will be happy to dispel this ignorance.


if by playing with words you mean communicating, yes....I am.....are you being dense or joking.....it isn't "mass or god making it look like mass"....it's god employing mass as he intended the system to work.....when an engineer designs an automobile engine is he required to run alongside the engine and spin it instead of using the gasoline it is designed to utilize?......

So runing with that, why do you think that a creator must of designed animals in the species which they are presently in? Why could he of not made the earth, knowing what would happen, and let everything evolve naturally as he designed it to?
You see, like i said, evolution will not disprove Gods/Creators in any way. The only people who make such claims are the religious, who seem to say its Evolution or Creation =/


evolution without control by an intelligent designer is a denial of God......there is no doubt that God claims to be the creator......to reject him in that role is a rejection of God....

Why so? Is Gravity without the control of an intelligent designed a denial of God?


evolution as you understand it is not compatible with the concept of creation......your form of evolution requires millenia simply because it has no basis other than random chance......creation requires one intentional act.....to think that a deity would require a million chances to get it right certainly reflects poorly upon the power of the deity......

Damn right it takes millennia, and do you know for a fact that is not how the creator designed it to be?

[OldMercsRule]

There are zero examples (or theories that hold up), where order arises out of random chaos. PERIOD: Noir.

Intelligent design can exist with evolution, Darwinian evolution can not stand on it's own merits without an explanation for how it all, (cosmology that creates the basic elemental building blocks as well), started.

An omnipotent God that created the order we observe could always exist, (a constant), and some: as I, believe that is the best way to explain what we are learining about both our universe and life on this planet.

One can debate the nature of the creator, science and or theory at the present stage can not explain the original source of the order we observe in the heavens or in life. Simple as that. JR

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you have evidence of anything that has existed without having first not existed?
???....do you have evidence that something cannot have always existed?



So if i may bring in area 4 of the video, summation, and how many dozens of different and independent fields of science all link into each other perfectly and follow the pattern predicted by Darwin many years before some of these felids even came onto existence.
none that I am aware of......all of science I have ever seen is perfectly compatible with the concept of a creating, designing deity.....



Mutations are random, the process by which the mutations are tested is not, it is ruthlessly efficient. Those with inefficient/wasteful mutinous will die out, those with more efficient/helpful mutations will prosper.
a predator with a voracious appetite, a freak late spring freeze that kills a mutated sapling, a comet plunging from space.....don't try to pretend that the "tests" are not random.....



And ofcourse nature is changing, we are on a cooling planet. The planet today will look very different to what it was a few million years ago, would you not agree?
I will agree we are on a planet with a cyclical warming/cooling pattern





So what, you believe in irreducible complexity aswell? If so i will be happy to dispel this ignorance.
son, so far all you've done is spread it....




So runing with that, why do you think that a creator must of designed animals in the species which they are presently in? Why could he of not made the earth, knowing what would happen, and let everything evolve naturally as he designed it to?

he could have.....but it's not what he told us he did....



Damn right it takes millennia, and do you know for a fact that is not how the creator designed it to be?

well obviously, random chance is the opposite of 'creation"....

[Noir]

???....do you have evidence that something cannot have always existed?

Ofcourse not, because i can not disprove a negative. You are the one that must provide proof sir, not i. but that is not really for this thread.



none that I am aware of......all of science I have ever seen is perfectly compatible with the concept of a creating, designing deity.....

Ofcourse it is, because everything and anything that you will see can only exist (in your view) because your creator wanted you to see it. That is no argument at all.
Now then, do you think that all of these dozens of scientific felids like link seamlessly are all wrong?


a predator with a voracious appetite, a freak late spring freeze that kills a mutated sapling, a comet plunging from space.....don't try to pretend that the "tests" are not random.....

I don't see what you are getting at here.



I will agree we are on a planet with a cyclical warming/cooling pattern

Well there you are, making your statement that nature has not changed a little silly.



son, so far all you've done is spread it....

I am sharing scientific information, you are the one saying that it is not possible because of what you think the creator did.



he could have.....but it's not what he told us he did....

What did he tell us he did?


well obviously, random chance is the opposite of 'creation"....

And is it not possible the creator designed it with 'random chance' in mind?

Again i must stress, this thread is really nothing to do with god. Its about sharing awareness of scientific fact. You are the one that seems to think they two are not compatible.

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet
???....do you have evidence that something cannot have always existed?

Noir replies:
Ofcourse not, because i can not disprove a negative. You are the one that must provide proof sir, not i. but that is not really for this thread.

Murky replies: Noir, did you not choose the title of this thread "Irrefutable Proof of Evolution"? What did you mean by your title? Hmmmmmmmm?


Quote:
none that I am aware of......all of science I have ever seen is perfectly compatible with the concept of a creating, designing deity.....

Noir replies:
Ofcourse it is, because everything and anything that you will see can only exist (in your view) because your creator wanted you to see it. That is no argument at all.
Now then, do you think that all of these dozens of scientific felids like link seamlessly are all wrong?

Murky replies: Noir, Darwin's evolution is a theory that remains to be "proven". The sequencing of DNA has bolstered some aspects of evolution theory as your excellent video shows, (evolution is an incomplete theory as it does not explain how life started or where the elemental components of life came from or how they were assembled to kick start said life).

Intelligent design is compatable with such an incomplete theory as Darwin's evolution as it theorizes a constant that explains the begining of life and the order we observe in the universe as well as what we see within life: an intelligent designer.

Quote:
well obviously, random chance is the opposite of 'creation"....

And is it not possible the creator designed it with 'random chance' in mind?

Noir replies:
Again i must stress, this thread is really nothing to do with god. Its about sharing awareness of scientific fact. You are the one that seems to think they two are not compatible

Murky replies:

I did not get that from his response to you: Noir. Evolution theory is compatable with intelligent design and the two together do offer a complete theory, since it has never been shown or theorized that order can result from random chaos.

Your video, (as good as it is, IMHO), does not disprove intelligent design.

Respectfully, JR

[Noir]

Murky replies:

I did not get that from his response to you: Noir. Evolution theory is compatable with intelligent design and the two together do offer a complete theory, since it has never been shown or theorized that order can result from random chaos.

Your video, (as good as it is, IMHO), does not disprove intelligent design.

Respectfully, JR

I am NOT trying to disprove god in this thread (i do go into god being unlikely in other threads) this thread is about proving evolution. Which only the some religious people, like PMP, seem to think can't of happened, because of their god.


Murky replies: Noir, did you not choose the title of this thread "Irrefutable Proof of Evolution"? What did you mean by your title? Hmmmmmmmm?

Yes, i have provided proof of evolution, that is not what PMP was talking about when i was asking him for proof.


Murky replies: Noir, Darwin's evolution is a theory that remains to be "proven". The sequencing of DNA has bolstered some aspects of evolution theory as your excellent video shows, (evolution is an incomplete theory as it does not explain how life started or where the elemental components of life came from or how they were assembled to kick start said life).

No, it is a fact.
Aslo, Darwinism does not cover how life started, it is merely the process by which nature refines life, by natural selection.

[Trigg]

You can believe in evolution and creationism. One does not have to negate the other.

[Noir]

You can believe in evolution and creationism. One does not have to negate the other.

Trufax, it does bewilder me why PMP doesn't think so,

[OldMercsRule]

I am NOT trying to disprove god in this thread (i do go into god being unlikely in other threads) this thread is about proving evolution.

Evolution can not be "proven" without elements in the theory that shows where and how life actually began. Elements of evolution theory do look "likely", as does the existance of an intelligent designer look "likely".


Which only the some religious people, like PMP, seem to think can't of happened, because of their god.

I guess I missed where he said that.

[Noir]

Evolution can not be "proven" without elements in the theory that shows where and how life actually began. Elements of evolution theory do look "likely", as does the existance of an intelligent designer look "likely".

Erm, yes it can, and it has been proven.
Also, if you think an intelligent designer is likely you are way of the mark. Possible? Yes, Likely? Not at all.


I guess I missed where he said that.

He put the point to me
"???....do you have evidence that something cannot have always existed?"

Also i went back and edited my last post to include other points you made, sorry for having to go back like that.

[OldMercsRule]

(Noir's comments are in black print.)

Murky replies: Noir, did you not choose the title of this thread "Irrefutable Proof of Evolution"? What did you mean by your title? Hmmmmmmmm?

Yes, i have provided proof of evolution, that is not what PMP was talking about when i was asking him for proof.

Nope. You provided an interesting analysis and explanation that DNA sequencing shows potential commonality of distinct species on earth, (admittedly a big hurdle for evolution theory as inter species "evolution" had no basis at all prior to DNA sequencing).

Evolution is a very incomplete theory about how living things on this particular planet adapt to change over time. The profound weakness of evolution as a stand alone theory is the huge issue of order from random chaos.

If the theory can't deal with that obvoius hurdle it can not be "proven" in the conventional sense in science, and will always be susceptible to future (or existing: as intelligent design) theories that explain how life began.

Murky replies: Noir, Darwin's evolution is a theory that remains to be "proven". The sequencing of DNA has bolstered some aspects of evolution theory as your excellent video shows, (evolution is an incomplete theory as it does not explain how life started or where the elemental components of life came from or how they were assembled to kick start said life).

No, it is a fact.

No Noir it is a theory, and a very incomplete one at that. Only true believers, (usually Liberals accept evolution as "fact").

Aslo, Darwinism does not cover how life started,

Because it can not.

it is merely the process by which nature refines life, by natural selection.

That is why it is such a flawed theory that requires intelligent design to make it complete: Noir.

Respectfully, JR

[Noir]

Sweet good christ you have a weird posting style.




Nope. You provided an interesting analysis and explanation that DNA sequencing shows potential commonality of distinct species on earth, (admittedly a big hurdle for evolution theory as inter species "evolution" had no basis at all prior to DNA sequencing).

No it does not show potential, it shows that we are from a common ancestor. Unless you, like PMP, believe that a creator designed us to look like we had a common ancestor, but did not.


Evolution is a very incomplete theory about how living things on this particular planet adapt to change over time. The profound weakness of evolution as a stand alone theory is the huge issue of order from random chaos.

You clearly know very little about evolution, and are instead dancing around with other terms to through the scent. More over this term 'order from chaos'
What chaos are you describing exactly?


If the theory can't deal with that obvoius hurdle it can not be "proven" in the conventional sense in science, and will always be susceptible to future (or existing: as intelligent design) theories that explain how life began.

The theory of how life began and the theory of evolution are totally different. If you don't know that, then what do you know?


No Noir it is a theory, and a very incomplete one at that. Only true believers, (usually Liberals accept evolution as "fact").

Now you are just tossing insults for the sake of tossing them, Again i must ask what part of evolution you think is incomplete?


Because it can not.

Exactly, evolution is not meant to unravel how life began, nor will it, in the same way that the theory of gravity will not explain anything other that the relationship between mass and dents in space time, evolution will only explain how life evolved, not how it started.

it is merely the process by which nature refines life, by natural selection.


That is why it is such a flawed theory that requires intelligent design to make it complete: Noir.

Respectfully, JR

Again we are on to Gods, you seem to think part of the theory is to know how life began, when it is not. Therefore it is complete without explaining how life began, which you may believe is by a God.

The more i read the more i think you have missed the point of what evolution is. It is not meant to answer everything, it is just a model by which we can see how life has developed, and it is a proven fact that live has developed by evolution.

[OldMercsRule]

Quote:
Evolution can not be "proven" without elements in the theory that shows where and how life actually began. Elements of evolution theory do look "likely", as does the existance of an intelligent designer look "likely".

Noir states:
Erm, yes it can, and it has been proven.

You clearly do not know what scientific "proof" is: Noir.

Darwin's evolution is an incomplete pedestrian theory that attemps to explain aspects of biodiversity on planet earth that many modern Liberals accept as an article of anti religious faith similar to the way I accept as an article of faith: intelligent design, (as a Christian believer).

There have been instances of documented individual mutation in an existing species population, sequencing now shows the species have some common genitic building blocks, (the "inter species" issue was a major argument within evolution theory prior to sequencing the genomes of existing living organisms). If you know much about the theory of evolution you should know that.

This does not constitute proof of the theory of elvolution at all as there is zero proof or viable theories to explain order from random chaos as I have repeatedly stated.

Noir states:
Also, if you think an intelligent designer is likely you are way of the mark. Possible? Yes, Likely? Not at all.

It is the most likely and rational of all available explanations: Noir. Stephen Hawking's work has gone a bit beyond Einstein's with his work on gravity and black holes. That said: we still do not have a viable unification theory.

An intelligent design, (not necessarily a monothiestic one [as I believe is the case], which goes to the nature of the intelligent designer), is the most plausible explanation at this point in time for all to obvious order we now observe in life, particle physics, and cosmology.


Quote:
I guess I missed where he said that.

Noir states:
He put the point to me
"???....do you have evidence that something cannot have always existed?"

Seems like a reasonable question for a poster who titles a thread as proof of evolution as you have done. JR

[Noir]

You clearly do not know what scientific "proof" is: Noir.

Darwin's evolution is an incomplete pedestrian theory that attemps to explain aspects of biodiversity on planet earth that many modern Liberals accept as an article of anti religious faith similar to the way I accept as an article of faith: intelligent design, (as a Christian believer).

There have been instances of documented individual mutation in an existing species population, sequencing now shows the species have some common genitic building blocks, (the "inter species" issue was a major argument within evolution theory prior to sequencing the genomes of existing living organisms). If you know much about the theory of evolution you should know that.

lolololol
I don't know what scientific proof is? I suggest you watch the 2nd video in the OP again, you know, summation, the one that shows how dozens of independent scientific fields all merge together perfectly, exactly as was predicted by Darwin's theory years before many of those fields of science even came into existence. The fact that every one of them supports the others in their scientific findings, are they all wrong?


This does not constitute proof of the theory of elvolution at all as there is zero proof or viable theories to explain order from random chaos as I have repeatedly stated.


Again you harp on about this order from Chaos, whats not to say that a creator made order and then evolution took place? (now i do not personally believe that, but i can understand how someone of faith would.)



It is the most likely and rational of all available explanations: Noir. Stephen Hawking's work has gone a bit beyond Einstein's with his work on gravity and black holes. That said: we still do not have a viable unification theory.

An intelligent design, (not necessarily a monothiestic one [as I believe is the case], which goes to the nature of the intelligent designer), is the most plausible explanation at this point in time for all to obvious order we now observe in life, particle physics, and cosmology.

Right, i do not want to get into much detail on Gods in this thread, that is not what it is for, i want to keep this one on topic as much as possible. If you want to talk about ID with me and its likelihood look in the religion forum were i have made a few threads or please start and new one, but gods really don't belong in this thread.



Seems like a reasonable question for a poster who titles a thread as proof of evolution as you have done. JR

Again, the thread is about evolution, not about gods. I should of really nipped that in the bud rather than letting it float about as it has done.

[OldMercsRule]

Noir states:
Sweet good christ you have a weird posting style.

10-4 ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

Nope. You provided an interesting analysis and explanation that DNA sequencing shows potential commonality of distinct species on earth, (admittedly a big hurdle for evolution theory as inter species "evolution" had no basis at all prior to DNA sequencing).

Noir replies:
No it does not show potential, it shows that we are from a common ancestor. Unless you, like PMP, believe that a creator designed us to look like we had a common ancestor, but did not.

I stand by my statment that we seem to have common characteristics of DNA construction which implies a common origin. Proof of said potential fact is still not as absolute as you state.

Quote:
Evolution is a very incomplete theory about how living things on this particular planet adapt to change over time. The profound weakness of evolution as a stand alone theory is the huge issue of order from random chaos.

You clearly know very little about evolution, and are instead dancing around with other terms to through the scent. More over this term 'order from chaos'
What chaos are you describing exactly?

Mass/energy/space/time without order or structure. How's that fer a dance? ;)

Quote:
If the theory can't deal with that obvoius hurdle it can not be "proven" in the conventional sense in science, and will always be susceptible to future (or existing: as intelligent design) theories that explain how life began.

Noir replies:
The theory of how life began and the theory of evolution are totally different. If you don't know that, then what do you know?

Only one functional brain cell never made me the sharpest knife in the drawer. ;)

Darwin's evolution relies on random mutation to generate a chance superior design that produces a competitor that replaces prior inferior designs. If the theory is valid it needs to be valid all the time not just when it is just "convenient", (say: as when life began, for example).

If one challanges the basic premis of random acts producing a spectacular order the logical reduction to test the theory is: can order result from random chaos? It can not. It's elemental: Watson. :D


Quote:
No Noir it is a theory, and a very incomplete one at that. Only true believers, (usually Liberals accept evolution as "fact").

Noir replies:
Now you are just tossing insults for the sake of tossing them, Again i must ask what part of evolution you think is incomplete?

I was not intentionally insulting you Noir, Modern Liberals do in fact accept Darwin's evolution with both furver and faith. The theory of evolution breaks down when logically extended to the origins of life: Noir. Real simple.


Quote:
Because it can not.

Noir replies:
Exactly, evolution is not meant to unravel how life began, nor will it,

Then it fails as a theory, which is my point.

Noir cont.
in the same way that the theory of gravity will not explain anything other that the relationship between mass and dents in space time,

Gravity is an odd force, (profoundly weak over distance, butt: stronger then all other forces up close and personal with sufficient mass), that does cause theoretical physicists major issues in their quest for a grand unification theory.

Noir cont.
evolution will only explain how life evolved, not how it started.

Then the theory fails.

Noir cont.
it is merely the process by which nature refines life, by natural selection.

That maybe possible as the limited theory shows.

Quote:
That is why it is such a flawed theory that requires intelligent design to make it complete: Noir.

Noir replies:
Again we are on to Gods, you seem to think part of the theory is to know how life began, when it is not.

No I am showing the weakness of the theory where it fails to explain what we observe.

Nior replies:
Therefore it is complete without explaining how life began, which you may believe is by a God.

It is flawed as random chaos does not evolve to order.

The more i read the more i think you have missed the point of what evolution is.

You should read further: Evolution is a shallow incomplete theory which only works where convenient.

It is not meant to answer everything, it is just a model by which we can see how life has developed, and it is a proven fact that live has developed by evolution.

Nope still a weak theory that has yet to be proven or disproven or greatly modified. Respectfully, JR

[OldMercsRule]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

You clearly do not know what scientific "proof" is: Noir.

Darwin's evolution is an incomplete pedestrian theory that attemps to explain aspects of biodiversity on planet earth that many modern Liberals accept as an article of anti religious faith similar to the way I accept as an article of faith: intelligent design, (as a Christian believer).

There have been instances of documented individual mutation in an existing species population, sequencing now shows the species have some common genitic building blocks, (the "inter species" issue was a major argument within evolution theory prior to sequencing the genomes of existing living organisms). If you know much about the theory of evolution you should know that.


Noir's replies are in black type.
lolololol
I don't know what scientific proof is?

Right: you do not. You are confusing the modification of Darwin's theory to comport with sequencing DNA. Evolution is still theory and has not been proven.

I suggest you watch the 2nd video in the OP again, you know, summation, the one that shows how dozens of independent scientific fields all merge together perfectly, exactly as was predicted by Darwin's theory years before many of those fields of science even came into existence. The fact that every one of them supports the others in their scientific findings, are they all wrong?

Unknown. Darwin's theory did not fit inter species observations prior to sequencing. That is a big step forward. I am not denying that.


Quote:
This does not constitute proof of the theory of elvolution at all as there is zero proof or viable theories to explain order from random chaos as I have repeatedly stated.

Again you harp on about this order from Chaos, whats not to say that a creator made order and then evolution took place? (now i do not personally believe that, but i can understand how someone of faith would.)

Evolution could be the method choosen by the intelligent designer. Order from random chaos is the primary profound weakness of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Quote:
It is the most likely and rational of all available explanations: Noir. Stephen Hawking's work has gone a bit beyond Einstein's with his work on gravity and black holes. That said: we still do not have a viable unification theory.

An intelligent design, (not necessarily a monothiestic one [as I believe is the case], which goes to the nature of the intelligent designer), is the most plausible explanation at this point in time for all to obvious order we now observe in life, particle physics, and cosmology.

Right, i do not want to get into much detail on Gods in this thread, that is not what it is for, i want to keep this one on topic as much as possible. If you want to talk about ID with me and its likelihood look in the religion forum were i have made a few threads or please start and new one, but gods really don't belong in this thread.

I have not debated the nature of the intelligent designer. The observable evidence supports the theory of intelligent design which fits all observations not just the convenient stuff you cite.

Quote:
Seems like a reasonable question for a poster who titles a thread as proof of evolution as you have done.

Again, the thread is about evolution, not about gods. I should of really nipped that in the bud rather than letting it float about as it has done.

I don't see the "floating about". You claim evolution is proven, I think I have shown that it is no where near proven. Respectfully, JR

[AllieBaba]

The first point is the least technical. However, do you not think it is interesting that God made creatures that are like humans, with weapons, music, art ect ect, and their is no mention of it in any creation stories, and they are in no way linked to humans via a genetic link? i.e. they evolved separately. Or did a creator just make some human like creatures with different DNA for some random reason?

The rest of the video is much more technical that the Neanderthal point.


Have any comments on the rest of the videos PMP?

Nothing God does is random.

However, you don't know the mind of God, either. There's no way to second guess him; and just because you don't understand him doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

The arrogance of those who insist that there is no God always amazes me...because their entire argument is based upon the fact that they don't get it. "I don't understand it, so it isn't true."

What a joke.

[Noir]

@Merc, seriously i can not read that, my mind just goes to mush with all the words and colours and some of it is posts that are replies to older posts and some of its not and i just can't make head nor tail of it all, never mind try and dice it up into sections to try and reply to,

@Alliebaba, i can assure you my argument is not "i don't understand it, ergo it is not true" and this is not a thread about god, it is a thread about evolution.

[OldMercsRule]

@Merc, seriously i can not read that, my mind just goes to mush with all the words and colours and some of it is posts that are replies to older posts and some of its not and i just can't make head nor tail of it all, never mind try and dice it up into sections to try and reply to,

@Alliebaba, i can assure you my argument is not "i don't understand it, ergo it is not true" and this is not a thread about god, it is a thread about evolution.

Guess yer ready to concede then eh? :D;)

Remember the ol bottom line: order can not be the result of random chaos.

[Noir]

Guess yer ready to concede then eh? :D;)

Remember the ol bottom line: order can not be the result of random chaos.

No i am not, and it is infuriating as i know how this will look, but i can only consul myself with the knowledge that i am known on this site and certainly do not shy away from debate, no matter how many i am against or for how many pages the debate rages, but i really can't follow what you are saying.

[Missileman]

Nothing God does is random.

However, you don't know the mind of God, either. There's no way to second guess him; and just because you don't understand him doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

The arrogance of those who insist that there is no God always amazes me...because their entire argument is based upon the fact that they don't get it. "I don't understand it, so it isn't true."

What a joke.

I don't know which atheists you've talked to, but I can honestly say that I've never seen an atheist argue that the reason they don't believe is that they don't understand the concept.

On the contrary, it's an understanding of the concept of gods that leads directly to the disbelief. The ancient civilizations of the world all had various relgious belief systems. In the exact same way that you rationalize the non-existence of Zeus, Vishnu, Isis, etc. atheists rationalize the non-existence of all gods.

[OldMercsRule]

No i am not, and it is infuriating

Wow got ya angry too??? :eek: Didn't mean too. ;)


as i know how this will look,

Yup it looks like random events leading to order really stumped ya.

Don't really blame ya fer havin' trouble with the concept as it is the primary weakness of the theory.


but i can only consul myself with the knowledge that i am known on this site and certainly do not shy away from debate,

You didn't shy away from the debate at all, you engaged and lost. You couldn't overcome the random creates order weakness that nobody who understands logic can overcome as it is a profound weakness to Darwin's theory of Evolution. Simple as that, don't get mad just learn from what happened.


no matter how many i am against or for how many pages the debate rages, but i really can't follow what you are saying.

Hmmmmmmm..... ya can't, eh?

Try one more time:Chaos begats chaos NOT: ORDER..

The inability to read colored posts is a strawman, (that many on this site tend ta use). So that fits right in. ;)

Carry on now. JR

[Missileman]

Congrats on figuring out how to use the quote function Merc!

[Missileman]

Wow got ya angry too??? :eek: Didn't mean too. ;)



Yup it looks like random events leading to order really stumped ya.

Don't really blame ya fer havin' trouble with the concept as it is the primary weakness of the theory.



You didn't shy away from the debate at all, you engaged and lost. You couldn't overcome the random creates order weakness that nobody who understands logic can overcome as it is a profound weakness to Darwin's theory of Evolution. Simple as that, don't get mad just learn from what happened.



Hmmmmmmm..... ya can't, eh?

Try one more time:Chaos begats chaos NOT: ORDER..

The inability to read colored posts is a strawman, (that many on this site tend ta use). So that fits right in. ;)

Carry on now. JR

There is nothing in the theory of evolution about order resulting from chaos so any arguments that the theory fails because of order resulting from chaos are fallacious.

[OldMercsRule]

Congrats on figuring out how to use the quote function Merc!

It only werks if I'm replying to what the poster stated.

If his reply to me was important to follow the thread, (which in this case it was not), I can't use it as the system drops the previous post.

[OldMercsRule]

There is nothing in the theory of evolution about order resulting from chaos so any arguments that the theory fails because of order resulting from chaos are fallacious.

OH? Just how do you think those mutations that lead to superior organisms happen? :eek:

Ya must think the tooth fairy aims the ol' gamma rays at specific genes in living organisms or some such eh? :dunno:

[Noir]

Wow got ya angry too??? :eek: Didn't mean too. ;)

Not angry, frustrated, for not being able to follow your posts, though it is not for a lack of wanting. Will you be able to keep a discussion going without mixing many posts into one with different colours ect?




Yup it looks like random events leading to order really stumped ya.
Don't really blame ya fer havin' trouble with the concept as it is the primary weakness of the theory.

Not at all, it was your formatting more than anything else.
However, this whole 'order from chaos' has nothing to do with the evolution debate.


You didn't shy away from the debate at all, you engaged and lost. You couldn't overcome the random creates order weakness that nobody who understands logic can overcome as it is a profound weakness to Darwin's theory of Evolution. Simple as that, don't get mad just learn from what happened.

More tosh, if you do not believe that chaos can come from order, how about a god creating the order from which evolution can take place?



Hmmmmmmm..... ya can't, eh?

Try one more time:Chaos begats chaos NOT: ORDER..

The inability to read colored posts is a strawman, (that many on this site tend ta use). So that fits right in. ;)

Carry on now. JR

It is not a strawman, you seriously expect someone to follow half a dozen different posts within posts and be able to edit and reply to them, maybe thats the way you brain works but it sure as heck ain't mine. If you do wish to carry on the debate can i suggest you keep it to one colour and to the last post,

[Missileman]

OH? Just how do you think those mutations that lead to superior organisms happen? :eek:

Ya must think the tooth fairy aims the ol' gamma rays at specific genes in living organisms or some such eh? :dunno:

Have you never heard of a bacteria developing a resistance to an antibiotic? It happens all the time through mutation.

[OldMercsRule]

Not angry, frustrated, for not being able to follow your posts, though it is not for a lack of wanting. Will you be able to keep a discussion going without mixing many posts into one with different colours ect?

Depends on the post. Many times I need the previous statement I made to which you replied or you would have to flip back and read both posts at one time. The two colors contrast the statements by both author and when the statment was made initially or in reply to a response which is needed for context.


Not at all, it was your formatting more than anything else.
However, this whole 'order from chaos' has nothing to do with the evolution debate.

Sure it does (as does complexity) which is related but you blew a gasket on the order from chaos corncept so we never progressed.


More tosh, if you do not believe that chaos can come from order, how about a god creating the order from which evolution can take place?

What is tosh? A Brit slang term or some such?

It is order from chaos that is the big issue for simple evolution not the reverse. I guess ya still don't get it after many pages of debate, eh?

The God I believe in is omnipitant. Either order or chaos is easy for God to create.


It is not a strawman,

Sure it is. You debated for pages before ya whined n' sniveled about me colors.


you seriously expect someone to follow half a dozen different posts within posts and be able to edit and reply to them,

I'm not forcing you to do anything.


maybe thats the way you brain works but it sure as heck ain't mine.

Only one functional brain cell. :D


If you do wish to carry on the debate can i suggest you keep it to one colour and to the last post,

I can try butt: no promises.

[OldMercsRule]

Have you never heard of a bacteria developing a resistance to an antibiotic? It happens all the time through mutation.

I'm not denying mutation.

I am stating that order does not flow from random chaos.

Partical phyics, the birth and death of stars that create elements from which living things are built, and the very simplist of life has complexity and order that could not come from random chaos.

Evolution is a one dimensional unproven theory that only explains the convenient, not the complex and clear order we find everywhere we care to look.

Intelligent design does explain all that we observe.

[Noir]

Good show, i much perfer this format.


Depends on the post. Many times I need the previous statement I made to which you replied or you would have to flip back and read both posts at one time. The two colors contrast the statements by both author and when the statment was made initially or in reply to a response which is needed for context.

I have never found that necessary in my years on forums.



Sure it does (as does complexity) which is related but you blew a gasket on the order from chaos corncept so we never progressed.

No it does not. You are talking about Gods and creators again, not evolution.



What is tosh? A Brit slang term or some such?

It is order from chaos that is the big issue for simple evolution not the reverse. I guess ya still don't get it after many pages of debate, eh?

The God I believe in is omnipitant. Either order or chaos is easy for God to create.

Tosh -
noun Brit., informal -rubbish; nonsense : it's sentimental tosh.

You believe in a god, fair enough, now, why could god not of created an earth upon which evolution could take place?
I have said before a dozen times, Gods/Creators and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.


Sure it is. You debated for pages before ya whined n' sniveled about me colors.

Indeed i was able to get threw a few, but it got more and more rediculiuos, not that it is a problem anymore though, ergo all is cool.


I'm not forcing you to do anything.

I didn't say you were forcing me, however, no doubt you would claim (as you did) that i was 'beaten' by not being able to reply to your posts.


Only one functional brain cell. :D

Pardon?


I can try butt: no promises.

Don't worry, if it starts getting to tough you can start hiding in complex post formats. (see what i did there?)

[Missileman]

I'm not denying mutation.

I am stating that order does not flow from random chaos.

Partical phyics, the birth and death of stars that create elements from which living things are built, and the very simplist of life has complexity and order that could not come from random chaos.

Evolution is a one dimensional unproven theory that only explains the convenient, not the complex and clear order we find everywhere we care to look.

Intelligent design does explain all that we observe.

If you aren't denying mutation, then you apparently don't know what the theory of evolution is if you are arguing against it.

As for complexity, it is an argument against rather than for intelligent design. Imagine yourself an omnipotent engineer. If you were going to build a machine, would you really make it out of a trillion small parts or a single part?

[PostmodernProphet]

Ofcourse not, because i can not disprove a negative. You are the one that must provide proof sir, not i. but that is not really for this thread.
[quote]
I'm sorry....no proof is required if you say you do not know if something is true.....but if you clearly state that something cannot be so you must have evidence that it cannot be so.....

[quote]
Ofcourse it is, because everything and anything that you will see can only exist (in your view) because your creator wanted you to see it. That is no argument at all.
Now then, do you think that all of these dozens of scientific felids like link seamlessly are all wrong?

of course not....it is your conclusion that therefore evolution is the explanation that I view as wrong....what I see you merely disdain as "irreducible complexity"......




I don't see what you are getting at here.

of course you do....I am listing random events that can alter evolution....
those things you pretend are "ordered".....




Well there you are, making your statement that nature has not changed a little silly.
?????....even sillier considering I have made no such statement....



I am sharing scientific information, you are the one saying that it is not possible because of what you think the creator did.
if you somehow believe you have shared scientific information that negates what I believe you have failed to make it obvious.....


What did he tell us he did?
he has told us he created....which is the opposite of sitting back and waiting for 'shit to happen'......



And is it not possible the creator designed it with 'random chance' in mind?
see the previous...



Again i must stress, this thread is really nothing to do with god. Its about sharing awareness of scientific fact. You are the one that seems to think they two are not compatible.
if you try to make evolution the substitution for creation, it is.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Trufax, it does bewilder me why PMP doesn't think so,

quite simply, because you attribute things to evolution that science cannot prove......God has stated the he created man......you believe he evolved randomly from a single celled creature.......that is not compatible.....

[PostmodernProphet]

He put the point to me
"???....do you have evidence that something cannot have always existed?"



that was not a comment on evolution....that was in response to your claim that God required a beginning....

[PostmodernProphet]

Unless you, like PMP, believe that a creator designed us to look like we had a common ancestor, but did not.

???....as you carefully demonstrated, neanderthals and we do NOT seem to have a common ancestor....

[PostmodernProphet]

You clearly know very little about evolution, and are instead dancing around with other terms to through the scent. More over this term 'order from chaos'
What chaos are you describing exactly?
no....he is not dancing around it.....you are dancing around it....seculars cannot admit that evolution is a chaotic random process because it screws up the theory....but it is exactly that....a random event can eliminate a promising genetic line....a mutation that might have made a creature immune to cancer, eaten by a hungry possum.....a new dominant carnivore extinct because of a bolt of lightening....

[PostmodernProphet]

There is nothing in the theory of evolution about order resulting from chaos .

that is true....evolution cannot account for the order that is visible, not only in the organic but in the inorganic side of creation.....that is why evolution fails as an explanation of what we see in the universe.....evolution as a theory requires a millenia of random, chaotic UNORDERED events.....there is no prediction that the best will survive.....what will survive is nothing more than a random event......

[PostmodernProphet]

Have you never heard of a bacteria developing a resistance to an antibiotic? It happens all the time through mutation.

that isn't the evolution we are debating here....here we are debating bacteria becoming a human being.....

[PostmodernProphet]

More tosh, if you do not believe that chaos can come from order, how about a god creating the order from which evolution can take place?

exactly....that is creation....which you deny

[PostmodernProphet]

As for complexity, it is an argument against rather than for intelligent design. Imagine yourself an omnipotent engineer. If you were going to build a machine, would you really make it out of a trillion small parts or a single part?

a trillion self replicating, self repairing parts....all formed by a single pattern generating program called DNA.....holy crap, what was I thinking.....that couldn't have been designed....it HAD to have built itself....(not the intelligence we're looking for, move along)......

[OldMercsRule]

You are talking about Gods and creators again, not evolution.

You claimed your videos offered "irrefutable proof of evolution" which is bunk. Your videos were very good and do help explain the advance of inter species connection learned via genomic sequencing, (which was a stumbling block for evolution theory).

My point is evolution is a theory about the source of biodiversity on earth that is incomplete and unproven. It fails to explain the origination of life and the complexity of the simplist life forms. That does not mean it has zero merit. If coupled with intelligent design theory it does offer the best current (unproven), explanation for what we observe.


You believe in a god, fair enough, now, why could god not of created an earth upon which evolution could take place?

I already said God could have been the designer and that is one way evolution could work as well. I don't deny evolution.


I have said before a dozen times, Gods/Creators and Evolution are not mutually exclusive.

You have not said that to me, butt we agree here then.


Indeed i was able to get threw a few, but it got more and more rediculiuos, not that it is a problem anymore though, ergo all is cool.

10-4


I didn't say you were forcing me, however, no doubt you would claim (as you did) that i was 'beaten' by not being able to reply to your posts.

Still think that is a strawman. :uhoh: The order from Chaos argument did smoke ya.... sorry the truth hurts! ;)



Don't worry, if it starts getting to tough you can start hiding in complex post formats. (see what i did there?)

Nope I'm a dinosaur, sorry, (one functional brain cell). JR

[OldMercsRule]

If you aren't denying mutation, then you apparently don't know what the theory of evolution is if you are arguing against it.?

I accept evolution as a likely correct theory to some extent, and I do understand the theory of evolution, and it is not proven fact.


As for complexity, it is an argument against rather than for intelligent design. ?

Nope just upside down. Complexity rules out simple random mutation.


Imagine yourself an omnipotent engineer. If you were going to build a machine, would you really make it out of a trillion small parts or a single part?

Single part eyeballs would favor mutation, complexity proves some sort of design.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. [4]

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6


http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

[Missileman]

Single part eyeballs would favor mutation, complexity proves some sort of design.[/COLOR]

Sorry, but you have it backwards. A designer, especially one for whom nothing would be impossible, would make things that work with just one part.

[OldMercsRule]

Sorry, but you have it backwards. A designer, especially one for whom nothing would be impossible, would make things that work with just one part.


Hard to know God's purpose. The complexity proves his work maybe we have a purpose eh?

[PostmodernProphet]

Sorry, but you have it backwards. A designer, especially one for whom nothing would be impossible, would make things that work with just one part.

so the ideal human would have been a single celled creature?.....oh wait, cells have parts....I guess the ideal human would have been a chemical element.....

[OldMercsRule]

Sorry, but you have it backwards. A designer, especially one for whom nothing would be impossible, would make things that work with just one part.


Had God wanted simplicity the big bang would not have happened, as profound simplicity likely existed when the mass of the universe was contained in a small singularity where gravity was dominate and crushed all other forces we now can observe, (once the expansion was allowed to happen).

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Clearly God must have desired complexity and free agency as we now can observe by examining God's work.

When God baked the original cake lots of rules, (laws of nature), that governed future particles, stars, galaxies, carbon based life et al. were ingrained for future wonders once God allowed the big bang to happen. That is the big challange for any theory that counts on random events creating all we can see to explain the obvious order and laws of the universe.

You may admire simplicity in design, then: admire the pre big bang universe, (as that is a "simple" as one can get). ;)

Fortunately for the rest of us, God the designer favored complexity so we would get the chance to exist and ponder these wonders.

[PostmodernProphet]

a perfect world would have just one fish....
a perfect world would have just one flower....
a perfect world would have just one cloud....
a perfect world would just have me.....

[glockmail]

Sorry, but you have it backwards. A designer, especially one for whom nothing would be impossible, would make things that work with just one part. Stupid logic.

[Missileman]

Had God wanted simplicity the big bang would not have happened, as profound simplicity likely existed when the mass of the universe was contained in a small singularity where gravity was dominate and crushed all other forces we now can observe, (once the expansion was allowed to happen).

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Clearly God must have desired complexity and free agency as we now can observe by examining God's work.

When God baked the original cake lots of rules, (laws of nature), that governed future particles, stars, galaxies, carbon based life et al. were ingrained for future wonders once God allowed the big bang to happen. That is the big challange for any theory that counts on random events creating all we can see to explain the obvious order and laws of the universe.

You may admire simplicity in design, then: admire the pre big bang universe, (as that is a "simple" as one can get). ;)

Fortunately for the rest of us, God the designer favored complexity so we would get the chance to exist and ponder these wonders.

I admire the simplicity of your mind. :poke:

[PostmodernProphet]

I feel so ignored....

[OldMercsRule]

I admire the simplicity of your mind. :poke:

Yup a single functional brain cell is purdy simple. :lol:

Bottom line: the two videos Noir gave us to start this thread show a relationship between complex different earth species via sequencing genomes, (that is an interesting break through). This shows that aspects of the broken theory of evolution can fit (to some degree), and now be applied to inter species discussions, where prior to the sequencing there was no evidence of viable cross species connection.

That is the extent of what it shows.

That in no way shape or form shows: "irrefutable proof of evolution".

Evolution theory is a one hundred fifty plus year old (simple pedestrian) theory that fits some observations of life on planet earth. The theory has huge limitations as the source of change that drives evolution and therefore the basis of the theory is random events. :eek:

Can living things (within species) "evolve" to a more effective survivor when confronted by environmental change? Yes, as we observe in (bacteria). Can intentional breeding work to modify species? Yes, as dog breeders/tulip growers et al prove.

The mechanism for change is clearly present within life. Is it part of an intelligent designer's placement of a basic code or yet to be understood rule of nature governing all life? Likely, or obsolutely, (answer depending on one's faith). ;)

Random events simply can not explain, (theory or applied), the order we observe, so the theory of evolution still fails. (Even after sequencing genomes has shown futher potential applications.)

Conversely: Intelligent design, (ID), has not failed as a viable theory, and still is the best way to explain observations of complexity about life, particles and cosmology.

Detractors of ID, sometimes attempt to define God, (the creator/designer), via biblical statements or some such to disprove the ID theory: fail. As long as the intelligent designer is omnipotent and constant ID is viable, (as God could be a constant that predates the creation of space/time).

Hows that for simple? JR :D

[Missileman]

Yup a single functional brain cell is purdy simple. :lol:

Bottom line: the two videos Noir gave us to start this thread show a relationship between complex different earth species via sequencing genomes, (that is an interesting break through). This shows that aspects of the broken theory of evolution can fit (to some degree), and now be applied to inter species discussions, where prior to the sequencing there was no evidence of viable cross species connection.

That is the extent of what it shows.

That in no way shape or form shows: "irrefutable proof of evolution".

Evolution theory is a one hundred fifty plus year old (simple pedestrian) theory that fits some observations of life on planet earth. The theory has huge limitations as the source of change that drives evolution and therefore the basis of the theory is random events. :eek:

Can living things (within species) "evolve" to a more effective survivor when confronted by environmental change? Yes, as we observe in (bacteria). Can intentional breeding work to modify species? Yes, as dog breeders/tulip growers et al prove.

The mechanism for change is clearly present within life. Is it part of an intelligent designer's placement of a basic code or yet to be understood rule of nature governing all life? Likely, or obsolutely, (answer depending on one's faith). ;)

Random events simply can not explain, (theory or applied), the order we observe, so the theory of evolution still fails. (Even after sequencing genomes has shown futher potential applications.)

Conversely: Intelligent design, (ID), has not failed as a viable theory, and still is the best way to explain observations of complexity about life, particles and cosmology.

Detractors of ID, sometimes attempt to define God, (the creator/designer), via biblical statements or some such to disprove the ID theory: fail. As long as the intelligent designer is omnipotent and constant ID is viable, (as God could be a constant that predates the creation of space/time).

Hows that for simple? JR :D

As you have so expertly done in previous posts, you have again shown that you have no idea what the theory of evolution is.

As for ID being a viable theory, it is viable only in philosophical terms, not scientific. There isn't a single shred of scientific evidence to support ID.

[PostmodernProphet]

As you have so expertly done in previous posts, you have again shown that you have no idea what the theory of evolution is.

As for ID being a viable theory, it is viable only in philosophical terms, not scientific. There isn't a single shred of scientific evidence to support ID.

all of science is consistent with the theory, none of it contradicts it......

[OldMercsRule]

As you have so expertly done in previous posts,

OH..... so now you have gone from admirin' the simplicity of me functional brain cell ta observin' sometin' I've done "expertly" now. :eek: Hmmmmmmm........


you have again shown that you have no idea what the theory of evolution is.

Both you and Noir use the same weak argument.

Here is Darwin's theory.

1 Life from non life. (The major failure of the theory).

2 All life on earth related and decended from common ancester.

3 Random mutations occur to living organisms.

4 Simple organisms evolve to complex organisms from cumulative mutations.

5. Benificial mutations that aid survival are preserved by "natural selection".

6. Over time cumulative random mutations lead to entirely different organisms.


As for ID being a viable theory, it is viable only in philosophical terms, not scientific.

There is no valid unified scientific theory that explains life or the rest of our observations of particles and cosmology. There are individual theories that explain some observations, (evolution being one of those). Intelligent design does explain the weak areas and fills in some of the holes of scientific theories.


There isn't a single shred of scientific evidence to support ID.

Irreducible complexity provides observational evidence of intelligent design, since mutations in evolution are theorized to be one at a time, over time.

[Missileman]

Here is Darwin's theory.

1 Life from non life. (The major failure of the theory).

2 All life on earth related and decended from common ancester.

3 Random mutations occur to living organisms.

4 Simple organisms evolve to complex organisms from cumulative mutations.

5. Benificial mutations that aid survival are preserved by "natural selection".

6. Over time cumulative random mutations lead to entirely different organisms.

Number 1 is NOT part of Darwin's theory. You already agreed that #3 is indeed a true statement. Number 6 is close, but should read cumulative beneficial mutations...

But yes, 2-6 is a good description of the theory, yet you keep arguing like it's something else.


There is no valid unified scientific theory that explains life or the rest of our observations of particles and cosmology. There are individual theories that explain some observations, (evolution being one of those). Intelligent design does explain the weak areas and fills in some of the holes of scientific theories.

Sorry, but arbitrary stuffing of holes in knowledge with claims of divine intervention is about as far away from scientific as one can get.




Irreducible complexity provides observational evidence of intelligent design, since mutations in evolution are theorized to be one at a time, over time.

Irreducible complexity is nothing more than pseudo-scientific conjecture that was made up by thumpers in hopes of introducing the Bible into the public education system as a science book. None of ID's conclusions have ever passed testing using the scientific method.

[OldMercsRule]

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

Here is Darwin's theory.

1 Life from non life. (The major failure of the theory).

2 All life on earth related and decended from common ancester.

3 Random mutations occur to living organisms.

4 Simple organisms evolve to complex organisms from cumulative mutations.

5. Benificial mutations that aid survival are preserved by "natural selection".

6. Over time cumulative random mutations lead to entirely different organisms.

Number 1 is NOT part of Darwin's theory. You already agreed that #3 is indeed a true statement. Number 6 is close, but should read cumulative beneficial mutations...

But yes, 2-6 is a good description of the theory, yet you keep arguing like it's something else.

Hmmmmmm....... ya don't think ol' Charles Darwin said that life from non life in #1 then yer sayin'?

Check this out:

Specifically, in a 1871 letter written by Darwin to English botanist Joseph Hooker, Darwin made the suggestion that:


"[The original spark of life may have begun in] a warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."

http://www.eoht.info/page/Charles+Darwin :lol:



Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
There is no valid unified scientific theory that explains life or the rest of our observations of particles and cosmology. There are individual theories that explain some observations, (evolution being one of those). Intelligent design does explain the weak areas and fills in some of the holes of scientific theories.

Sorry, but arbitrary stuffing of holes in knowledge with claims of divine intervention is about as far away from scientific as one can get.

I guess yer sayin' only approved proposed theories are allowed to stuff those "holes" in a politicaly correct way then? :eek: Hmmmmmmmm......
Me thinks valid theories are valid theories dosen't matter if they came from Mars.





Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Irreducible complexity provides observational evidence of intelligent design, since mutations in evolution are theorized to be one at a time, over time.
Irreducible complexity is nothing more than pseudo-scientific conjecture that was made up by thumpers in hopes of introducing the Bible into the public education system as a science book. None of ID's conclusions have ever passed testing using the scientific method.

Irreductable complexity is a solid concept that defeats single mutation evolution that Charles Darwin theorized.

[Missileman]

Hmmmmmm....... ya don't think ol' Charles Darwin said that life from non life in #1 then yer sayin'?

Check this out:

Specifically, in a 1871 letter written by Darwin to English botanist Joseph Hooker, Darwin made the suggestion that:


"[The original spark of life may have begun in] a warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes."

http://www.eoht.info/page/Charles+Darwin :lol:



I guess yer sayin' only approved proposed theories are allowed to stuff those "holes" in a politicaly correct way then? :eek: Hmmmmmmmm......
Me thinks valid theories are valid theories dosen't matter if they came from Mars.





Irreductable complexity is a solid concept that defeats single mutation evolution that Charles Darwin theorized.

Darwin mave have believed and even said that life sprang from non-life...IT"S NOT PART OF EVOLUTION!

If you want to have a debate on SCIENTIFIC theories then let's leave out the non-scientific ones shall we? There is nothing scientific about ID. Until you can acknowledge that and quit bringing it into the conversation you have no point.

[OldMercsRule]

Darwin mave have believed and even said that life sprang from non-life...IT"S NOT PART OF EVOLUTION!

Not only is life from non life an obvious premis of Darwin's theory of Evolution; the author of the theory said as much in his own words as I quoted.

It is what it is no matter what you would like it to be. ;)

Do you believe in the tooth fairy? :laugh2:


If you want to have a debate on SCIENTIFIC theories then let's leave out the non-scientific ones shall we?

I'm debating Noir's false claim that the two videos about DNA sequencing offer "irrefutable proof" of Evolution. They clearly do not prove anything other then a connection between some species, (that is consistent with evolution, butt: not inconsistent with ID), as I have shown. ;)

All theories attempt to explain observations, (regardless of the source of the theory); and if the theory fits all observable conditions: that is the objective of any theory. So far ID works, and has yet to be disproven by science or any other method.

Science is actually neutral and either proves or disproves theories.

Science is not required to be politically correct (and adhere to your faith in certain theories you happen to find "scientific").

Darwin's theory was actually an improvement of an old thesis (from philosophers back at least as far as the 6th century BC Greece, the Chinese, Romans, Persians, and then the Arabs also offered versions of the same theory), totally based upon observation and applied philosophy from nearly a 3,000 year period of time.

Darwin felt the old thesis which he refined seemed, (at the time), to fit his observations of life on the Galapagos Islands; until science advanced to show irreducable complexities in even simple single celled life that could not possibly result from one mutation at a time.

Evolution fails without ID.

I regect your attempt to restrict and or direct how I debate this issue. Sorry.


There is nothing scientific about ID.

Regardless of how you feeeeeeeel about ID, (as it seems to challange your religious like faith in Darwin's theory of evolution); ID which maybe even older then evolution theories still offers the best explanation of theory unification we now have.

Science may prove or disprove the theory of ID at some point in the future, (I personally doubt it will be disproven). :)


Until you can acknowledge that and quit bringing it into the conversation you have no point.

Only politically correct debating on this thread allowed yer sayin'? No thanks, I will debate how I choose.

Noir obviously gave up his lost cause, (who could blame the poor fella).

You just carry on now. ;)

[Noir]

I'm debating Noir's false claim that the two videos about DNA sequencing offer "irrefutable proof" of Evolution. They clearly do not prove anything other then a connection between some species, (that is consistent with evolution, butt: not inconsistent with ID), as I have shown. ;)

Mate, get this through your skull, the videos do not show "a connection between some species" they show how dozens of independant scientific studies in different fields all fit perfectly togeth to show how all species are desended from a common ancestor.

As I have already said, this is not a thread to disprove ID or Creationism, but to prove evolution. So leave gods OUT of it.

Sorry I have not been able to reply more full and to more posts but it is awkward enough to keep track of debates at the mo, nevermind be active in them.

But I want to state again fir the record, this is not a topic about how life started, or about if their are gods (deist or theist) it is about the proof of a evolution, which has been proven as much as any other scientific theory, and those who claim it is not just because they think it contradicts their religion are chosing to live in ignorence.

[OldMercsRule]

Mate, get this through your skull, the videos do not show "a connection between some species" they show how dozens of independant scientific studies in different fields all fit perfectly togeth to show how all species are desended from a common ancestor.

I guess ya forgot about Neanderthals eh? I saw no such tapestry when I viewed the videos. I can see where it looked impressive to true belivers.


As I have already said, this is not a thread to disprove ID or Creationism, but to prove evolution. So leave gods OUT of it.

I didn't attempt to prove ID; I just presented a theory that is superior to the theory of evolution, (or helps evolution explain observations if combined).


Sorry I have not been able to reply more full and to more posts but it is awkward enough to keep track of debates at the mo, nevermind be active in them.

You started this thread with the now discredited claim of "irrefutable proof" of evolution theory. I think ya lost the debate.


But I want to state again fir the record, this is not a topic about how life started, or about if their are gods (deist or theist) it is about the proof of a evolution, which has been proven as much as any other scientific theory, and those who claim it is not just because they think it contradicts their religion are chosing to live in ignorence.

Evolution is a very old theory that has a lot of problems. The author stated life came from non life, (which is the biggest failure of the theory).

It is not "irrefutably proven" in any way shape or form.

ID is another very old theory that has far less problems in failing to fit observations then does evolution, and it's existance as a viable theory seems to drive those who are true believers in evolution off the deep end.

Sounds like your rhetoric has softened noticably.

[Missileman]

Not only is life from non life an obvious premis of Darwin's theory of Evolution; the author of the theory said as much in his own words as I quoted.

It is what it is no matter what you would like it to be. ;)

Do you believe in the tooth fairy? :laugh2:



I'm debating Noir's false claim that the two videos about DNA sequencing offer "irrefutable proof" of Evolution. They clearly do not prove anything other then a connection between some species, (that is consistent with evolution, butt: not inconsistent with ID), as I have shown. ;)

All theories attempt to explain observations, (regardless of the source of the theory); and if the theory fits all observable conditions: that is the objective of any theory. So far ID works, and has yet to be disproven by science or any other method.

Science is actually neutral and either proves or disproves theories.

Science is not required to be politically correct (and adhere to your faith in certain theories you happen to find "scientific").

Darwin's theory was actually an improvement of an old thesis (from philosophers back at least as far as the 6th century BC Greece, the Chinese, Romans, Persians, and then the Arabs also offered versions of the same theory), totally based upon observation and applied philosophy from nearly a 3,000 year period of time.

Darwin felt the old thesis which he refined seemed, (at the time), to fit his observations of life on the Galapagos Islands; until science advanced to show irreducable complexities in even simple single celled life that could not possibly result from one mutation at a time.

Evolution fails without ID.

I regect your attempt to restrict and or direct how I debate this issue. Sorry.



Regardless of how you feeeeeeeel about ID, (as it seems to challange your religious like faith in Darwin's theory of evolution); ID which maybe even older then evolution theories still offers the best explanation of theory unification we now have.

Science may prove or disprove the theory of ID at some point in the future, (I personally doubt it will be disproven). :)



Only politically correct debating on this thread allowed yer sayin'? No thanks, I will debate how I choose.

Noir obviously gave up his lost cause, (who could blame the poor fella).

You just carry on now. ;)

Show one single instance where ID has passed scrutiny using the scientific method and you win.

[OldMercsRule]

Show one single instance where ID has passed scrutiny using the scientific method and you win.

Ya sound like a high brow Liberal defending Algore the buffoon's global warmin'......."passed scrutiny using the scientific method".... :laugh2:

A theory that fits and explains observations stands.

Simple as that.

[Missileman]

Ya sound like a high brow Liberal defending Algore the buffoon's global warmin'......."passed scrutiny using the scientific method".... :laugh2:

A theory that fits and explains observations stands.

Simple as that.

I'll take that as an admission that ID isn't, wasn't, and never will be a scientific theory.

[OldMercsRule]

I'll take that as an admission that ID isn't, wasn't, and never will be a scientific theory.


Nope not an admission.

Theories are theories, most are based upon observation and hypothesis.

You are using the term "scientific" to create a politically correct threashold.

Evolution is a very old, (2600 year plus), theory based on both observation and philosophy which science has disproven when the irreducable complexity of life, (even single cell life), was discovered.

[Missileman]

Nope not an admission.

Theories are theories, most are based upon observation and hypothesis.

You are using the term "scientific" to create a politically correct threashold.

Evolution is a very old, (2600 year plus), theory based on both observation and philosophy which science has disproven when the irreducable complexity of life, (even single cell life), was discovered.

No, there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. There is this theory...the Keebler Theory wherein the universe emerged from a hollow tree where elves were churning out all the elements that make up everything. If you look at atomic structure, the particles are so tiny that only the little hands of magical elves could have worked with them. So you see, the Keebler Theory is the best explanantion of the hole in the big bang theory.

The Keebler Theory has as much going for it scientifically as ID.

I suggest you read up on the difference between a theory and a scientific theory as well as scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[OldMercsRule]

No, there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. There is this theory...the Keebler Theory wherein the universe emerged from a hollow tree where elves were churning out all the elements that make up everything. If you look at atomic structure, the particles are so tiny that only the little hands of magical elves could have worked with them. So you see, the Keebler Theory is the best explanantion of the hole in the big bang theory.

The Keebler Theory has as much going for it scientifically as ID.

I suggest you read up on the difference between a theory and a scientific theory as well as scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Make up what you wish.

[PostmodernProphet]

they show how dozens of independant scientific studies in different fields all fit perfectly togeth to show how all species are desended from a common ancestor.


????....except they don't......I can as easily say that those dozens of independent scientific studies show how the deity intelligently designed everything to coalesce around his created human being.....and throw in further arguments from physics, astronomy, and chemistry as well.....

[Noir]

????....except they don't......I can as easily say that those dozens of independent scientific studies show how the deity intelligently designed everything to coalesce around his created human being.....and throw in further arguments from physics, astronomy, and chemistry as well.....

Exactly, I am not trying to disprove a creator, but to prove evolution. Now given all the evidence either life on earth evolved or a God designed life to look like it evolved.
As for how life started in the first place, or how the earth came into being ect that is for another topic.

[Missileman]

Make up what you wish.

That is exactly what the IDers did.

[PostmodernProphet]

Exactly, I am not trying to disprove a creator, but to prove evolution. Now given all the evidence either life on earth evolved or a God designed life to look like it evolved.
As for how life started in the first place, or how the earth came into being ect that is for another topic.

obviously if the evidence isn't contradictory of either evolution or creation, it cannot be said to "prove" evolution........you say "God designed life to look like it evolved".......I say God designed life and created it, you've simply chosen to say that's what "evolved" looks like........

[OldMercsRule]

That is exactly what the IDers did.

No that is not true.

Both theroies (Evolution and ID), are very old and predate the religion of modern science and were proposed out of pondering observations of life and proposing a hypothesis to explain said observations consistent with your Wiki cite.

See section of the Wiki cite you used to see that both theories actually fit this model when constructed:

Hypothesis development
A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon, or alternately a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between or among a set of phenomena.

Normally hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, they can also be formulated as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon being studied has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic.

Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study. Charles Sanders Peirce, borrowing a page from Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 2.25) described the incipient stages of inquiry, instigated by the "irritation of doubt" to venture a plausible guess, as abductive reasoning. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a "flash of inspiration", or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute their idea. Michael Polanyi made such creativity the centerpiece of his discussion of methodology.

William Glen observes that

the success of a hypothesis, or its service to science, lies not simply in its perceived "truth", or power to displace, subsume or reduce a predecessor idea, but perhaps more in its ability to stimulate the research that will illuminate … bald suppositions and areas of vagueness.[40]
In general scientists tend to look for theories that are "elegant" or "beautiful". In contrast to the usual English use of these terms, they here refer to a theory in accordance with the known facts, which is nevertheless relatively simple and easy to handle. Occam's Razor serves as a rule of thumb for making these determinations.

You ridicule ID as being "made up" when evolution was also just as "made up" when originally proposed (as many theories that attempt to explain observations are similarly "made up" , (to use your terms).

The Roman Catholic Church became soooooo powerful after the fall of Rome that it wrongfully treated scientific discovery and theories advanced (which appeared to conflict with the Church's version), as heresy. Islam did not have that problem and the Islamic world in terms of science advanced relative to Europe dominated by the Church. Fortunately the printing press and Luthur broke the Church's power and science in Europe and elewhere was allowed to advance.

The pendulum has now swung toward the relatively recent fruits of science. Modern anti religious worshipers of Darwin's theory of Evolution have created a "political correctness" associated with modern scientific methods to ridicule theories that do not fit their particular notion of what they feel measures up within their particular religion.

Not withstanding this political correctness: ID does still fit observations and advances in modern science better then any unification theory advanced thus far, butt lacks conventional ways to test the theory at the present level of technology which is the basis of anti religious followers who attempt to discredit a still valid theory.

It is unknown if we will ever advance sufficiently to see the face of God if God does not take the initiative and show the hand of creation to us.

Charles Darwin actually worked to catergorize species observed to fit the old evolution theory so that the anti religious could create high sounding "scientific method" to successfully advance their theory until the emense irruductable complexity of all life was revealed by modern science making evolution a failed theory, butt a theory that still has some merits and may be the model of the Intelligent Designer.

[OldMercsRule]

Exactly, I am not trying to disprove a creator, but to prove evolution.

Evolution theory as a basic premis rules out pre-existing design and specifically proposes random step by step individual mutations as a method of explaining observations of simple to complex life on earth. Darwin admitted problems with the then known function of eyeballs observed at the time of his work due to irreducable complexity.

Therefore to "prove" Evolution: ID must be disproven and order from random chaos must be proven. That is the weakness of the theory of evolution. ID does not have that fundamental weakness as the model the designer could use could be a form of evolution, (although clearly not simple step by step benificial mutations as proposed in the theory). Complexity proves some sort of pre existing set of rules exist and the rules must come from somewhere.


Now given all the evidence either life on earth evolved or a God designed life to look like it evolved.

Likely the latter as evidence rules out cumulative individual benificial mutations able to create the simplist of observed life.



As for how life started in the first place,

If Evolution theory can not account for the start of life the theory can not stand alone as the simplist observed life is extremely complex and must have followed a pre existing set of rules.


or how the earth came into being ect that is for another topic.

Every unexplained seam or hole in the theory of evolution creates a profound weakness. ID as a unified theory is directly opposed to the notion of order from random chaos as I stated many posts back. No way around that failed fundamental weakness within the theory of Evolution.

Evolution is not irrifutably proven; quite the contrary: as it fails in several areas and is trumped by the older superior unified theory with which it competes.

If you actually read Darwin's work he also knew he needed to disprove the dominant theory/faith and his work is filled with such discussion.

[Missileman]

No that is not true.

Both theroies (Evolution and ID), are very old and predate the religion of modern science and were proposed out of pondering observations of life and proposing a hypothesis to explain said observations consistent with your Wiki cite.

See section of the Wiki cite you used to see that both theories actually fit this model when constructed:

Hypothesis development
A hypothesis is a suggested explanation of a phenomenon, or alternately a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between or among a set of phenomena.

Normally hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. Sometimes, but not always, they can also be formulated as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon being studied has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic.

Scientists are free to use whatever resources they have — their own creativity, ideas from other fields, induction, Bayesian inference, and so on — to imagine possible explanations for a phenomenon under study. Charles Sanders Peirce, borrowing a page from Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 2.25) described the incipient stages of inquiry, instigated by the "irritation of doubt" to venture a plausible guess, as abductive reasoning. The history of science is filled with stories of scientists claiming a "flash of inspiration", or a hunch, which then motivated them to look for evidence to support or refute their idea. Michael Polanyi made such creativity the centerpiece of his discussion of methodology.

William Glen observes that

the success of a hypothesis, or its service to science, lies not simply in its perceived "truth", or power to displace, subsume or reduce a predecessor idea, but perhaps more in its ability to stimulate the research that will illuminate … bald suppositions and areas of vagueness.[40]
In general scientists tend to look for theories that are "elegant" or "beautiful". In contrast to the usual English use of these terms, they here refer to a theory in accordance with the known facts, which is nevertheless relatively simple and easy to handle. Occam's Razor serves as a rule of thumb for making these determinations.

You ridicule ID as being "made up" when evolution was also just as "made up" when originally proposed (as many theories that attempt to explain observations are similarly "made up" , (to use your terms).

The Roman Catholic Church became soooooo powerful after the fall of Rome that it wrongfully treated scientific discovery and theories advanced (which appeared to conflict with the Church's version), as heresy. Islam did not have that problem and the Islamic world in terms of science advanced relative to Europe dominated by the Church. Fortunately the printing press and Luthur broke the Church's power and science in Europe and elewhere was allowed to advance.

The pendulum has now swung toward the relatively recent fruits of science. Modern anti religious worshipers of Darwin's theory of Evolution have created a "political correctness" associated with modern scientific methods to ridicule theories that do not fit their particular notion of what they feel measures up within their particular religion.

Not withstanding this political correctness: ID does still fit observations and advances in modern science better then any unification theory advanced thus far, butt lacks conventional ways to test the theory at the present level of technology which is the basis of anti religious followers who attempt to discredit a still valid theory.

It is unknown if we will ever advance sufficiently to see the face of God if God does not take the initiative and show the hand of creation to us.

Charles Darwin actually worked to catergorize species observed to fit the old evolution theory so that the anti religious could create high sounding "scientific method" to successfully advance their theory until the emense irruductable complexity of all life was revealed by modern science making evolution a failed theory, butt a theory that still has some merits and may be the model of the Intelligent Designer.

ID is nothing more than creationism dressed up in a made up bullshit scientific sounding term called irreducible complexity. ID is a philosophical theory, NOT a scientific one.

As I've said, produce ONE instance where ID has withstood the scientific method and you win.

[PostmodernProphet]

ID is nothing more than creationism dressed up in a made up bullshit scientific sounding term called irreducible complexity. ID is a philosophical theory, NOT a scientific one.

As I've said, produce ONE instance where ID has withstood the scientific method and you win.

give me an instance where science has contradicted it.....

[OldMercsRule]

ID is nothing more than creationism dressed up in a made up bullshit scientific sounding term called irreducible complexity.

Logic is one of the tools used to validate and or invalidate theories combined with scientific observation and experimentation. Darwin himself was aware of this problem with logic to the theory of evolution, (the inherent logical fallacy of simple step by step mutations over time creating complex living organs with multiple complex parts, [useless when not applied in combination with other very different component parts] necessary to function all at the same time).

This problem has gotten worse with break throughs in modern microbiology.

If an archeologist finds a pocket watch in an ancient dig he can apply logic and deduce that it was droped by someone not associated with the period his dig is investigating as it is obviously designed and engineered at a later time with then available technology without attributing the device to the period he is exploring with the dig.


ID is a philosophical theory, NOT a scientific one.

Evolution is also a very old philosophical and observational theory that Darwin attempted to clothe in science in the 19th century. The science does not validate the theory in areas of profound weakness as this debate shows. Logical application of observations force failure of step by step random mutations leading from the simple to greater complexity. Quite simply: order has never been observed to flow from random chaos.


As I've said, produce ONE instance where ID has withstood the scientific method and you win.

I and PostmodernProphet have already won this debate with our own methods of applied logic. You can use CAPS to challange us to enter your politically correct style of debate all ya want, that doesn't mean we need to enter the world of your faith to prevail.

Dirisive language like "bullshit" "pseudo" science et al does not win this debate for you either.

Stand alone evolution fails from the weight of basic logic applied to observations.

ID does not. Simple as that, (as you seem to admire simplicity).

[OldMercsRule]

Even though I believe in Christ/(Trinity) as the Intelligent Designer myself, I have debated the true believers: Noir and Missileman on just the merits of the two very old theories.

They have ridiculed the merits of ID as a theory where Evolution had very similar roots as an observation based theory.

They gave up, (don't blame them as they clearly lost the debate), before the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion was discussed (which shows a massive explosion of complex life from about 540 Million years ago during a roughly 11 million year period). Darwin himself knew this (then known) archaeological discovery was inconsistent with his (Darwin's) mechanism of slow steady one mutation at a time, (where only the good mutations survived), progression from simple to complex life the way he characterized Evolution.

http://www.learnthebible.org/cambrian-explosion-disproves-evolution.html

He was hopefull that future discoveries of intermediate fossils would bail him out butt: that has not happened either since the mid 19th century.

The true believer who put together the video in the first post trumpeted DNA sequencing showing some inter species connection as "proof" of the illogical theory of Evolution. NOT SO. Any other theory with so many holes would fall on it's own weight.

The only facter keeping Evolution is the indoctrination that we all learn from educators and media and from missguided scientists who have bought into the faith of the failed theory of Evolution hook line and sinker.

The other obvious experience from this thread is the tollerance, (not surprizing to me) of Christians who seem to dominate this site and allow this discussion to proceed as a theory to theory debate where it is clearly faith to faith.

Christians (as myself) freely admit faith in the most viable of the two theories while the true believers use the look down their nose claim of valid science where Evolution theory fails science, observations and logic.

[Missileman]

If an archeologist finds a pocket watch in an ancient dig he can apply logic and deduce that it was droped by someone not associated with the period his dig is investigating as it is obviously designed and engineered at a later time with then available technology without attributing the device to the period he is exploring with the dig.

When an archeologist FINDS a million year old watch, you'll have a point.




Evolution is also a very old philosophical and observational theory that Darwin attempted to clothe in science in the 19th century. The science does not validate the theory in areas of profound weakness as this debate shows. Logical application of observations force failure of step by step random mutations leading from the simple to greater complexity. Quite simply: order has never been observed to flow from random chaos.

You are dead wrong on this...science has yet to invalidate the theory of evolution, if it had, it wouldn't be held valid by scientists...that's what scientific method is all about.




I and PostmodernProphet have already won this debate with our own methods of applied logic. You can use CAPS to challange us to enter your politically correct style of debate all ya want, that doesn't mean we need to enter the world of your faith to prevail.

Dirisive language like "bullshit" "pseudo" science et al does not win this debate for you either.

Stand alone evolution fails from the weight of basic logic applied to observations.

ID does not. Simple as that, (as you seem to admire simplicity).

I put ONE in caps for emphasis. I am not asking you to prove ID to a certainty, not even by a preponderance of evidence. As you keep trying to hold ID up as a viable scientific theory, it makes sense that it should actually pass scientific methodology. As I've stated, to win this argument, all you have to do is provide a single instance where ID or any principle of ID has done so.

[Missileman]

Even though I believe in Christ/(Trinity) as the Intelligent Designer myself, I have debated the true believers: Noir and Missileman on just the merits of the two very old theories.

They have ridiculed the merits of ID as a theory where Evolution had very similar roots as an observation based theory.

They gave up, (don't blame them as they clearly lost the debate), before the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion was discussed (which shows a massive explosion of complex life from about 540 Million years ago during a roughly 11 million year period). Darwin himself knew this (then known) archaeological discovery was inconsistent with his (Darwin's) mechanism of slow steady one mutation at a time, (where only the good mutations survived), progression from simple to complex life the way he characterized Evolution.

http://www.learnthebible.org/cambrian-explosion-disproves-evolution.html

He was hopefull that future discoveries of intermediate fossils would bail him out butt: that has not happened either since the mid 19th century.

The true believer who put together the video in the first post trumpeted DNA sequencing showing some inter species connection as "proof" of the illogical theory of Evolution. NOT SO. Any other theory with so many holes would fall on it's own weight.

The only facter keeping Evolution is the indoctrination that we all learn from educators and media and from missguided scientists who have bought into the faith of the failed theory of Evolution hook line and sinker.

The other obvious experience from this thread is the tollerance, (not surprizing to me) of Christians who seem to dominate this site and allow this discussion to proceed as a theory to theory debate where it is clearly faith to faith.

Christians (as myself) freely admit faith in the most viable of the two theories while the true believers use the look down their nose claim of valid science where Evolution theory fails science, observations and logic.

ROFL...you really are a tool.

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

If an archeologist finds a pocket watch in an ancient dig he can apply logic and deduce that it was droped by someone not associated with the period his dig is investigating as it is obviously designed and engineered at a later time with then available technology without attributing the device to the period he is exploring with the dig.

When an archeologist FINDS a million year old watch, you'll have a point.

Doesn't need to be a million year old watch, the point was logic. Sorry ya missed it.





Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Evolution is also a very old philosophical and observational theory that Darwin attempted to clothe in science in the 19th century. The science does not validate the theory in areas of profound weakness as this debate shows. Logical application of observations force failure of step by step random mutations leading from the simple to greater complexity. Quite simply: order has never been observed to flow from random chaos.

You are dead wrong on this...science has yet to invalidate the theory of evolution, if it had, it wouldn't be held valid by scientists...that's what scientific method is all about.

Nope, not "dead wrong" at all. Evolution only fits convenient observations, (mostly intra species variations), and is very incomplete, as life clearly did not come from a warm pond of amino acids and a bolt of lightning. The first hypothosis of Evolution predates modern science and was philosophical and observational, (Greeks, Chinese Persians et al).

We now know that all known life is very complex with irreducible complexity that does not fit the single mutation at a time mechanism of Darwin's theory of evolution at all. (Logic 101). Most mutations result in death of the organism and some negative mutations (like cancers) the organism lives on to reproduce. Order never flows from random chaos.

The fossil record only has complete, (not intermediate) mainly complex creatures and the Cambian explosion happened very fast and had most of the complexity of creatures now living 540 million years later. Very dissimilar to the one mutation at a time mechanism of Darwin's model. BIG FAIL! (caps for emphasis).

The theory is therefore quite flawed and takes much more faith to believe in your Evolution religion then ID.





Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
I and PostmodernProphet have already won this debate with our own methods of applied logic. You can use CAPS to challange us to enter your politically correct style of debate all ya want, that doesn't mean we need to enter the world of your faith to prevail.

Dirisive language like "bullshit" "pseudo" science et al does not win this debate for you either.

Stand alone evolution fails from the weight of basic logic applied to observations.

ID does not. Simple as that, (as you seem to admire simplicity).

I put ONE in caps for emphasis. I am not asking you to prove ID to a certainty, not even by a preponderance of evidence.

This debate is not about proving ID, it is about the fact the Evolution theory is not irrefutably proven, quite the contrary it does not fit observations of single celled life or the fossil record, (no intermediate fossils found).


As you keep trying to hold ID up as a viable scientific theory,

No ID is a viable theory that still fits all observations, (unlike Evolution). "Scientific theory" is your faith in your particular religion of Darwinism. :D


it makes sense that it should actually pass scientific methodology.

To the true believers as you it may "make sense". ID is logical, and still fits the observations. Has the still valid "scientific theory" of "dark matter" passed your precious "scientific methodology"? Hmmmmmmmmmm????? :laugh:


As I've stated, to win this argument, all you have to do is provide a single instance where ID or any principle of ID has done so.

Nope. The debate is about the so called "irrefutably proven" Evolution theory of you true believers (which ID competes with) as has since the two theories came into being a long time ago.

I don't need to prove ID, as you don't need to prove the theory about "dark matter" either in this debate. :laugh2:

This debate has been won long ago, that is why you can only call names as you did in the last post.

Evolution does not explain where life came from.
All life is far to complex to come from step by step mutations. Model fails.
Evolution does not fit the fossil record. Fails to fit MOST observations.
That is a long LONG way from irrefutably proven.

It is a religion, and you are a believer (one of many) that is why it lives on. Kinda like Algore the buffoon's man made global warmin'!!!! ;)

[Missileman]

Doesn't need to be a million year old watch, the point was logic. Sorry ya missed it.

Logic can surely be used to formulate a hypothesis, but that's just the first step. This is why ID isn't a scientific theory, because it's never taken past that point.




Nope, not "dead wrong" at all. Evolution only fits convenient observations, (mostly intra species variations), and is very incomplete, as life clearly did not come from a warm pond of amino acids and a bolt of lightning. The first hypothosis of Evolution predates modern science and was philosophical and observational, (Greeks, Chinese Persians et al).

Says you...but not knowing how life started on earth for certain doesn't grant you license to plug in fairy tales to fill the gaps. The ancient hypothesis of evolution resembles today's theory about as much as their astronomical models resemble the known universe.


Most mutations result in death of the organism and some negative mutations (like cancers) the organism lives on to reproduce. Order never flows from random chaos.

Baloney...you've already stated your acceptance that mutation occurs that makes bacteria stronger...don't try to crawfish now. And when was the last time you saw a cancer tumor walking down the road having survived through reproduction?


The fossil record only has complete, (not intermediate) mainly complex creatures and the Cambian explosion happened very fast and had most of the complexity of creatures now living 540 million years later. Very dissimilar to the one mutation at a time mechanism of Darwin's model. BIG FAIL! (caps for emphasis).

The theory is therefore quite flawed and takes much more faith to believe in your Evolution religion then ID.

More nonsense straight from the evangelical pseudo-science handbook.




This debate is not about proving ID, it is about the fact the Evolution theory is not irrefutably proven, quite the contrary it does not fit observations of single celled life or the fossil record, (no intermediate fossils found).

If it didn't fit, it would be discarded, that's how science works.




No ID is a viable theory that still fits all observations, (unlike Evolution). "Scientific theory" is your faith in your particular religion of Darwinism.

ID is a hypothesis, not a theory.



Has the still valid "scientific theory" of "dark matter" passed your precious "scientific methodology"? Hmmmmmmmmmm?????

With every post, you make it more and more obvious that you have no clue how science works. I'll say it again, because after a few more times it might actually sink in. In science, hypotheses that can't withstand the scientific method are discarded.




Nope. The debate is about the so called "irrefutably proven" Evolution theory of you true believers (which ID competes with) as has since the two theories came into being a long time ago.

I don't need to prove ID, as you don't need to prove the theory about "dark matter" either in this debate.

That is why I never asked you to prove ID. What I asked for can't be provided and you and the other proponents of ID know it.

[Missileman]

Evolution does not explain where life came from.


By the way knucklehead...a few posts back you were arguing that evolution does, but incorrectly, explain where life came from...care to make up your mind?

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Doesn't need to be a million year old watch, the point was logic. Sorry ya missed it.

Logic can surely be used to formulate a hypothesis, but that's just the first step. This is why ID isn't a scientific theory, because it's never taken past that point.

The debate is not about ID theory, it is about the "irrefutably proven" :laugh2: theory of Evolution which competes with ID and always has, (read Darwin's original work if ya don't believe me).

Theories need to be logical and also fit observations, (as the "Dark Matter" theory in cosmology does). Just because we can't fire up the Star Ship Enterprize and go out and get some actual dark matter to analyze doesn't stop us from making a theory based on observation.



Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Nope, not "dead wrong" at all. Evolution only fits convenient observations, (mostly intra species variations), and is very incomplete, as life clearly did not come from a warm pond of amino acids and a bolt of lightning. The first hypothosis of Evolution predates modern science and was philosophical and observational, (Greeks, Chinese Persians et al).

Says you...but not knowing how life started on earth for certain doesn't grant you license to plug in fairy tales to fill the gaps.

Quoting the author of your religious theory is hardly pluging in "fairy tales".



The ancient hypothesis of evolution resembles today's theory about as much as their astronomical models resemble the known universe.

It actually resembles the original theory a great deal. Darwin just pluged in 19th century scientific methods to wrap the old theory in the known science of that time. That has given the religious proponents pollitically correct semantics of 19th century failed science for cover, which you have tried to use in this debate, unsuccessfully: I might add. :laugh2:

It is still based upon observation of similarities of species, (as with the Greeks). Darwin didn't know single cell life was incredibly complex or he would not have gotten anywhere. The Evolution religion flurished before microbiology made further discoveries that blew it up, and zealots have overlooked the fossil record problems from the onset.



Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Most mutations result in death of the organism and some negative mutations (like cancers) the organism lives on to reproduce. Order never flows from random chaos.

Baloney...you've already stated your acceptance that mutation occurs that makes bacteria stronger...don't try to crawfish now.

Bacteria don't become fish or horses do they? The Intelligent Designer could have designed the organisms to have a great deal of natural variation when faced with a chemical challange to their existance. We know that bacteria can survive in very harsh environments don't we?


And when was the last time you saw a cancer tumor walking down the road having survived through reproduction?

Cancer survivors reproduce all the time. Random mutations swing both ways, that is a flaw in your order from chaos religion. :lame2:



Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
The fossil record only has complete, (not intermediate) mainly complex creatures and the Cambian explosion happened very fast and had most of the complexity of creatures now living 540 million years later. Very dissimilar to the one mutation at a time mechanism of Darwin's model. BIG FAIL! (caps for emphasis).

The theory is therefore quite flawed and takes much more faith to believe in your Evolution religion then ID.

More nonsense straight from the evangelical pseudo-science handbook.


The one mutation at a time mechanism of your religion of evolution theory does not fit observations regardless of name calling. :lame2:




Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
This debate is not about proving ID, it is about the fact the Evolution theory is not irrefutably proven, quite the contrary it does not fit observations of single celled life or the fossil record, (no intermediate fossils found).

If it didn't fit, it would be discarded, that's how science works.


That maybe how science works butt not religion. Evolution theory is a faith based theory that is not logical, (order from random chaos), does not fit observations of living things, (single cell life is irreducibly complex), or the fossil record. FAIL.



Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
No ID is a viable theory that still fits all observations, (unlike Evolution). "Scientific theory" is your faith in your particular religion of Darwinism.

ID is a hypothesis, not a theory.


Politically correct semantics. :laugh2:



Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Has the still valid "scientific theory" of "dark matter" passed your precious "scientific methodology"? Hmmmmmmmmmm?????

With every post, you make it more and more obvious that you have no clue how science works. I'll say it again, because after a few more times it might actually sink in. In science, hypotheses that can't withstand the scientific method are discarded.


Evolution theory is much more then just a theory it is a religion. It would have been discarded after intermediate fossils did not turn up and the complexity of single cell life was discovered. It has never been consistent with the second law of thermodydamics or logic as order never flows from random chaos. The Cambrian explosion and the eyeball were serious known flaws in the theory when Darwin tried to clothe it in 19th century science.




Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Nope. The debate is about the so called "irrefutably proven" Evolution theory of you true believers (which ID competes with) as has since the two theories came into being a long time ago.

I don't need to prove ID, as you don't need to prove the theory about "dark matter" either in this debate.

That is why I never asked you to prove ID. What I asked for can't be provided and you and the other proponents of ID know it.

The debate is not about ID. ID just happens to compete with the religion of Evolution theory, and does fit observations and logic much better then your religious theory does. Real simple, (only takes one functional brain cell to get it). ;) Carry on now.

[OldMercsRule]

By the way knucklehead...a few posts back you were arguing that evolution does, but incorrectly, explain where life came from...care to make up your mind?

Hey Knucklehead: A premis of Darwin's evolution theory is life from non life. :laugh2:

I quoted the 19th century author of your religion.

That premis fails as does the theory. :laugh2:

It is a VERY successful religion, however. Caps for emphasis ;)

[OldMercsRule]

Ya really think Evolution is irrefutably proven?



Hmmmmmmmmmm??????????? :D:D:D

[Noir]

Ya really think Evolution is irrefutably proven?

Hmmmmmmmmmm??????????? :D:D:D

Yep, it is, whether or not you think it's so.

Let me try an put this another way:
Prove to me that Gravity is proportional to the mass of an object based on the dent it makes in spacetime.

[OldMercsRule]

Yep, it is, whether or not you think it's so.

Spoken as a true believer.

I agree with you on one point: what I think about your belief system is not important at all. ;)

No problems with how the eyeball werks? With many required parts that can't function in isolation, (the leader of your religion had issues with this problem as he said himself). :laugh2:

No problems with the massive burst of complex life documented in the Cambrian period, or with the fact that no intermediate fossils have been found in the fossil record? The leader of your faith had grave corncerns about the risk to his theroy of the Cambrian explosion. :laugh2:

No problem with the logical hurdle of order from random chaos? :laugh2:

Guess ya now know how the Mormons feel eh? :D


Let me try an put this another way:
Prove to me that Gravity is proportional to the mass of an object based on the dent it makes in spacetime.

Why would I go off topic?

You got spanked in this debate, so change the subject. :laugh2:

Can you prove the theory of Dark Matter? Not that it has much to do with the price of beans in Boston. :D:D:D

[Noir]

Spoken as a true believer.

I agree with you on one point: what I think about your belief system is not important at all. ;)

No problems with how the eyeball werks? With many required parts that can't function in isolation, (the leader of your religion had issues with this problem as he said himself). :laugh2:

No problems with the massive burst of complex life documented in the Cambrian period, or with the fact that no intermediate fossils have been found in the fossil record? The leader of your faith had grave corncerns about the risk to his theroy of the Cambrian explosion. :laugh2:

No problem with the logical hurdle of order from random chaos? :laugh2:

Guess ya now know how the Mormons feel eh? :D

None of what you have said about stands up to anything. Go onto YouTube and type in the text 'Richard Dawkings Foundation' there you will find many hours of videos, showing intermediate species (of which the whale is a perfect example) there are also a series of lectures about 'climing mount improbable' in which he goes into great detail about how the eye formed, and there are many other species with more evolved and less evolved eyes than ours.




Why would I go off topic?

You got spanked in this debate, so change the subject. :laugh2:

Can you prove the theory of Dark Matter? Not that is has much to do with the price of beans in Boston. :D:D:D

I'm not surprised you don't want to follow this up, because you know if you do you will not be able to give irrefutable proof that mass and gravity are linked if I play my cards right. If you are not happy to go off topic here to prove my point I can make another thread just for you with that as it's OP, would you rather that?

[OldMercsRule]

None of what you have said about stands up to anything.

Of course not to a true believer with a closed mind.


Go onto YouTube and type in the text 'Richard Dawkings Foundation' there you will find many hours of videos, showing intermediate species (of which the whale is a perfect example)

Noir, you maybe a great guy butt: yer not my momma. ;)

I pick and choose what I debate due to my own personal interests, (not someone else's). Thanks for your corncern over my lack of knowledge, (from your perspective, anyhoooooooo), leading to my heathen like rejection of most of your precious religion of evolution corncepts.

I will be just fine without getting intoxicated on your booooooob tube kool aid.

I am well aware that your religion is pervasive, and many internet sites, books et al exist to help make your religious case for Evolution and spew more kool aid to those who are interested.

I also don't rely, (primarily), on videos or articles written by others to make my points in debate as I've seen you do, (although to save time I will plagiarize a list of complex features of whales that logically could not have mutated one at a time), as had to happen if your religious views are correct. :D

I know the true believers of your Evolution religion think that whales entered the water about 50 million years ago. That is religious conjecture that also defies logic as whales are fully developed advanced life forms. We were not around 50 million years ago to see the "step by step mutations" :laugh2: that hardly could account for the unique features of whales.

Cetaceans have many unique features to enable them to live in water. For example:

Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.
A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.
Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.
Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.
Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.
Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.
Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).
Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.
Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution



there are also a series of lectures about 'climing mount improbable' in which he goes into great detail about how the eye formed, and there are many other species with more evolved and less evolved eyes than ours.

I mentioned eyes as your religion's founder could see the obvious problems with eyes that true believers have had over 150 years to make chit up that doesn't make logical sense.

Make you own case about eyes if ya wanna debate me. ;)

I don't debate videos or articles on the internet. If you have the hair to make the debate I will publically spank ya as I have done with your "irrefutable proof" chit. :laugh2: So fire away. :D


I'm not surprised you don't want to follow this up, because you know if you do you will not be able to give irrefutable proof that mass and gravity are linked if I play my cards right.

I don't know of anything that can be proven with "irrefutable proof": Noir. That's the kinda language true believers like you tend to use. :laugh2:

I know that gravity is a difficult force of nature to intigrate with other observed forces, and if Einstein and Hawking had or now have difficulties with gravity why would a feller with only one functional brain cell tackle the issue 'cause his internet forum momma told him to?????? :laugh2:

No thanks. Chase wild geese if ya want to!!!! :laugh2:


If you are not happy to go off topic here to prove my point I can make another thread just for you with that as it's OP, would you rather that?

I'm not your momma: Noir. Do what you wish. I'm debating an "irrefutably proven" theory of Evolution right here on this thread. :laugh2:

[Noir]

I can note quote and reply to such a long post on my phone, so I hope you will forgive my poorly formated reply, but that should not take away from it's content.

You say I follow an evolution religion, do you follow a gravity religion? After all nothing can be irrefutably proven, right?

Sorry if you think that me providing the views of leading Bioligists and refeding you to experts in the feild is somehow wrong, but I would of thought that men who have spent years as experts in their feilds would be better at explaing evolution than I.

You say the list of whale feautues could not have happened at one time...and I do not believe they do. Infact I believe quiet the opposite, that it all happened by a gradual process, that of natural selection, it would take me an hour to type out details of whale evolution, again (though you may not like it) I can only suggest you look up the science for yourself. But to take one example, the blow-hole, there are dozens of fossils showing the nostril on ancestors and as you go through the years you can see the nostril hole slowly move further up the skull until you have a modern day blowhole. Again you must look up the material to see it.

Indeedy, eyes look very complex, but there are creatures which Show different stages of eye development, some creatures can only sense light and dark, others have a concave socket giving direction of light, humans have both a concave socket and lens giving directionand focus, some creatures have extended lenses giving magnified vision, and others have got a total concave covering with only a pin-hole open ect ect. Also, take in to account that the human eye is in no way perfect, and have a blind spot ect, an unavoidable evolutionary drawback.

Again with they eye, you really have to look it up yourself to see how it developed in us and other creatures. I can o ly describe so much before you need to look to experts for detailed biological explinations.

[OldMercsRule]

I can note quote and reply to such a long post on my phone, so I hope you will forgive my poorly formated reply, but that should not take away from it's content.

10-4


You say I follow an evolution religion, do you follow a gravity religion? After all nothing can be irrefutably proven, right?

I accept theories with qualification. I try to keep an open mind on most issues. True believers usually can't think outside the box their brain resides in, that is why they are true believers. :laugh2:


Sorry if you think that me providing the views of leading Bioligists and refeding you to experts in the feild is somehow wrong, but I would of thought that men who have spent years as experts in their feilds would be better at explaing evolution than I.

I am aware of leading Biologist's positions: Noir. Many butt not all are also true believers drunk on kool aid (as you are). I may have only one functional brain cell butt: it works just fine.

In debate I assume you understand basic logic. Your beloved theory fails on a number of areas regardless of what studied people have to say about it. It obviously does not fit major areas of observation in complex single celled life or the fossil record. That is EXACTLY how a theory fails, not a religion.


You say the list of whale feautues could not have happened at one time...and I do not believe they do.

Confusing statement: Noir. Your religion has a very specific one mutation at a time mechanism that is fundamental to the theory, and a primary logical failure.


Infact I believe quiet the opposite, that it all happened by a gradual process,

OH..... I see..... let's work through the list shall we:

#1: Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.

Now explain how a random mutation over time could lead to such an extremely complex lung with efficient oxygen echange? Not possible one random mutation at a time!

#2: A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.

How would the land animal, (pre goin' in the ol' water as your religion dictates), be able to compete on land with such a large powerful and very heavy tail........before the next random mutation caused the next necessary feature to be a successful whale....... hmmmmmmm??????? :laugh2:

#3: Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.

Very complex organs with irreducible components that must all function together flawlessly for the eye to function. If he went in the water before this highly improbable developement from random one at a time mutation he would starve eh?

#4: Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.

Very complex organs highly improbable from random one at a time mutation!!!!!

#5: Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.

Can ya imagine the land animal walking around on land competing for survival with this feature????? I sure can't!!! :laugh2:

#6: Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.

A real advantage for land survival before the rest of those necessary random mutations showed up????? :laugh2:

#7: Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).

Kinda hard to make it as a whale without this feature, eh? How's the land animal survive and compete with the huge tail and blubber and fins if this feature doesn't show up right on time eh? :laugh2:

#8: Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.

Seems like a rather complex and very important feature unless ya don't think reproduction is important, eh????

#9: Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.

How do ya think that feature would work on land for superior competition, eh? :laugh2:

The majority of these features are absolutely necessary for pedestrian survival in a very competitive ocean that already had very successful organisms living in the sea 50 million years ago. NOT LOGICAL OR POSSIBLE one random mutation at a time.

You have to be a true believer unable to think outside the box to imagine this list of very necessary features (that would not work well on land at all), to all arrive just in time to make a successful whale from a previously successful land mammal from random one at a time mutations.

BTW if ya believe in the one at a time random mutation chit on this list of necessary features for a whale just before he takes his first swim, I have a bridge for sale!!!! N' it floats!!!!!


that of natural selection, it would take me an hour to type out details of whale evolution, again (though you may not like it) I can only suggest you look up the science for yourself.

Reply to how the above feature by feature list could come together in time from one at a time random mutations for the animal to swim from land into a successful 50 million year presence in the oceans, eh????


But to take one example, the blow-hole, there are dozens of fossils showing the nostril on ancestors and as you go through the years you can see the nostril hole slowly move further up the skull until you have a modern day blowhole. Again you must look up the material to see it.

That is on the list.


Indeedy, eyes look very complex, but there are creatures which Show different stages of eye development, some creatures can only sense light and dark, others have a concave socket giving direction of light, humans have both a concave socket and lens giving directionand focus, some creatures have extended lenses giving magnified vision, and others have got a total concave covering with only a pin-hole open ect ect. Also, take in to account that the human eye is in no way perfect, and have a blind spot ect, an unavoidable evolutionary drawback.

Again with they eye, you really have to look it up yourself to see how it developed in us and other creatures. I can o ly describe so much before you need to look to experts for detailed biological explinations.

If one feature of an eye is mutated it doesn't work as many necessary parts must ALL work together. All mutations would have to happen very quickly in a coordenated fashion to create a successful eye. BTW; one organism can't take a feature from another unrelated organism so it has to happen each time in each complex organism.

If your religion, (or the excessive kool aid you have consumed), prevents you from applying basic logic I can't help ya.

[Missileman]

10-4



#2: A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.

How would the land animal, (pre goin' in the ol' water as your religion dictates), be able to compete on land with such a large powerful and very heavy tail........before the next random mutation caused the next necessary feature to be a successful whale....... hmmmmmmm??????? :laugh2:

[/COLOR]

You Tard! Do you really think the whale developed a full tail before figuring out that it needed to live in the water? Shake your head vigorously...that silence is an indication that your one functioning brain cell has left the building.

[Noir]

Tomorrow I will go to the library to respond to your post in full, as there is too much to type on my mobile and I what to give a fullfilling answer.

[OldMercsRule]

You Tard!

:fu:


Do you really think the whale developed a full tail before figuring out that it needed to live in the water?

The whale figured out all by itself that it needed to live in the water yer sayin??????? LOLOLOLOL :laugh2::laugh2: :lame2:

OK Einstein........... sort if out for me will ya? Purdy please?????

Did that magic one at a time random mutation chit create a huge tail with large horizontal flukes just after he went for his first swim??? If not: how did he get from point A to point B out in the water? :laugh2:

Did he have his magic random mutation blow hole and his blubber as features too? How did that work out before he took the big swim eh? Or was he out swimmin' first........eh?????? :laugh2:

Didn't he need to compete with other land organisms for survival before his first swim accordin' to yer religion n' such???? :lame2:

Those special lungs and special eyes, ears and mouth created by all those well timed random mutations that arrived just in time fer success after the swimmin' started yer sayin'? :laugh2: Hmmmmmmmmm???????

Purdy kool if ya can 'splain how all this real fancy chit came together sooo nicely from random one at a time OVER TIME events............ :laugh2::laugh2:


Shake your head vigorously...that silence is an indication that your one functioning brain cell has left the building.

My brain cell works just fine. Thanks though........... fer yer corncern............ Pfffffffffffffft..... burp

[OldMercsRule]

Tomorrow I will go to the library to respond to your post in full, as there is too much to type on my mobile and I what to give a fullfilling answer.

Very kool

I will be waiting......

Respectfully, JR

[PostmodernProphet]

Do you really think the whale developed a full tail before figuring out that it needed to live in the water?

/boggle.....bad news, Miss.....the whale "figured out it needed to live in water", jumped in and drowned....another promising evolutionary line ended prematurely.....

[OldMercsRule]

/boggle.....bad news, Miss.....the whale "figured out it needed to live in water", jumped in and drowned....another promising evolutionary line ended prematurely.....


That was kinda funny was it not????

[Missileman]

:fu:



The whale figured out all by itself that it needed to live in the water yer sayin??????? LOLOLOLOL :laugh2::laugh2: :lame2:

OK Einstein........... sort if out for me will ya? Purdy please?????

Did that magic one at a time random mutation chit create a huge tail with large horizontal flukes just after he went for his first swim??? If not: how did he get from point A to point B out in the water? :laugh2:

Did he have his magic random mutation blow hole and his blubber as features too? How did that work out before he took the big swim eh? Or was he out swimmin' first........eh?????? :laugh2:

Didn't he need to compete with other land organisms for survival before his first swim accordin' to yer religion n' such???? :lame2:

Those special lungs and special eyes, ears and mouth created by all those well timed random mutations that arrived just in time fer success after the swimmin' started yer sayin'? :laugh2: Hmmmmmmmmm???????

Purdy kool if ya can 'splain how all this real fancy chit came together sooo nicely from random one at a time OVER TIME events............ :laugh2::laugh2:



My brain cell works just fine. Thanks though........... fer yer corncern............ Pfffffffffffffft..... burp

Let me introduce you to the seal...really...just too easy.

While you're at it, explain why an intelligent designer would make a fish that can't breathe underwater.

[OldMercsRule]

Let me introduce you to the seal...really...just too easy.

While you're at it, explain why an intelligent designer would make a fish that can't breathe underwater.

Wow you really are Einstein aren't ya, eh: clown? :laugh2:

The people in your Evolution religion don't think seals and whales are related at all, so I guess yer a lot smarter then they are eh?

Here is the ancestor of whales according to yer fellow believers:


Indohyus ("India's pig") is a genus of extinct artiodactyl known from Eocene fossils in Asia, purported to be approximately 48 million years old. A December 2007 article in Nature by Thewissen et al. used an exceptionally complete skeleton of Indohyus from Kashmir to indicate that raoellids may be the "missing link" sister group to whales (Cetacea).[1][2] All other Artiodactyla are "cousins" of these two groups. δ18O values and osteosclerotic bones indicate that the raccoon-like or chevrotain-like Indohyus was habitually aquatic, but δ13C values suggest that it rarely fed in the water. The authors suggest this documents an intermediate step in the transition back to water completed by the whales, and suggests a new understanding of the evolution of cetaceans.

Of course not all the kool aid drinkers of yer religion agree:

However, not all paleontologists are firmly persuaded that Indohyus is the transitional fossil that cetacean-origin experts were looking for. ScienceNOW, a daily news feature of the journal Science, notes that a team set to publish in the journal Cladistics postulates an extinct group of carnivorous mammals called "mesonychids" as more closely related to cetaceans. Additionally, the ScienceNOW article notes that "cetaceans are so different from any other creature that researchers haven’t been able to agree which fossil relatives best represent their nearest ancestors."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indohyus

As to seals, looks like they have only been here fer 15 million years or some such, (BTW: whales entered the water 50 million years ago).


There is evidence to suggest that seals have been on the Earth for more than 15 million years. The remains that have been found show that these seals were once mainly land animals. However, over time their appendages changed into flippers so they could survive mainly in the bodies of water. Researchers believe that if the seals hadn’t been able to do so they would have become extinct millions of years ago.

There is no doubt based on DNA and other scientific methods that seals are definitely related to the early land ancestors found. Many of these early findings show that there were times when the seals didn’t have to evolve or adapt to any changes for a very long time. Then during other periods of time it seems like they have had to make many changes over the course of a very short span of time.

It may seem like we are just touching on the tip of what took place with seal evolution. You have to remember though that it does take time to find the verifications. It also takes time to develop great testing methods so that the information can be valuable and real instead of mere speculation.

http://www.seals-world.com/seal-evolution.html

These clowns ^^^^^, (see contradictions in red), make you look smart: Missileman, (and that isn't easy).

Then there is more:

Researchers from the United States and Canada have found a fossil skeleton of a newly discovered carnivorous animal, Puijila darwini. New research suggests Puijila is a "missing link" in the evolution of the group that today includes seals, sea lions, and the walrus. The analysis of the skeleton and support for the hypotheses that pinniped origins can be found in the Arctic will be described in the April 23 issue of the journal Nature. Modern seals, sea lions, and walruses all have flippers—limb adaptations for swimming in water. These adaptations evolved over time, as some terrestrial animals moved to a semi-aquatic lifestyle. Until now, the morphological evidence for this transition from land to water was weak

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/04/22/fossil.evidence.missing.link.origin.seals.sea.lion s.walruses.found.canadian.arctic

Yer "just too easy" :laugh2: chit still didn't explain how random mutations OVER TIME explain the very sepcialized features of whales neccessary for success in a DEEP OCEAN water environment, (that would be very bad on land).

Maybe Noir can help ya out tomorrow eh? :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Missileman]

Wow you really are Einstein aren't ya, eh: clown? :laugh2:

The people in your Evolution religion don't think seals and whales are related at all, so I guess yer a lot smarter then they are eh?

I didn't say they were related, but limbs that became flippers, that eventually became a tail is perfectly logical and doesn't require a whale with a tail to have survived as a land animal as your retarded post suggested.

[PostmodernProphet]

I didn't say they were related, but limbs that became flippers, that eventually became a tail is perfectly logical and doesn't require a whale with a tail to have survived as a land animal as your retarded post suggested.

Doesn't the fact that both seals and whales are NOT related, yet have similar features such as flippers and tails, demonstrate that evolution is NOT a necessary explanation for their existence......they are simply well designed for their environment......it doesn't have to be the result of millions of years of random evolution......it can be the result of one intentional act of manipulating DNA........

[OldMercsRule]

I didn't say they were related,

No you said "just too easy". :lame2:


but limbs that became flippers, that eventually became a tail is perfectly logical

"Just too easy/ perfectly logical" if yer brain doesn't werk very well, or yer smokin' something very VERY strong. :laugh2:

You really think seals have all of the very special features of whales that I listed? :laugh2:

Seals live in fairly shallow waters near the coast where whales are huge deep sea going mammals. :rolleyes:

Your religion that produces random mutations could not logically put together such a string of timely very complex modifications for a smooth transition from a "small deer like" land animal to a huge specialized deep sea organism under any rational application of random one at a time over time mutations imaginable. :rolleyes:


and doesn't require a whale with a tail to have survived as a land animal as your retarded post suggested.

Your religion claims the "small deer like" land animal became a whale. The mechanism is one random mutation at a time over time. When would the tale happen then: Einstein??? On land or after the partially evolved organism begins swimming??

You really like to make up some silly chit don't ya???? :laugh2:

Seems like a huge problem to me since there are a significant number of additional very complex modifications to a "small deer like" land animal, to create a significantly different huge very successful deep sea mammal. :rolleyes:

[Missileman]

No you said "just too easy". :lame2:



"Just too easy/ perfectly logical" if yer brain doesn't werk very well, or yer smokin' something very VERY strong. :laugh2:

You really think seals have all of the very special features of whales that I listed? :laugh2:

Seals live in fairly shallow waters near the coast where whales are huge deep sea going mammals. :rolleyes:

Your religion that produces random mutations could not logically put together such a string of timely very complex modifications for a smooth transition from a "small deer like" land animal to a huge specialized deep sea organism under any rational application of random one at a time over time mutations imaginable. :rolleyes:



Your religion claims the "small deer like" land animal became a whale. The mechanism is one random mutation at a time over time. When would the tale happen then: Einstein??? On land or after the partially evolved organism begins swimming??

You really like to make up some silly chit don't ya???? :laugh2:

Seems like a huge problem to me since there are a significant number of additional very complex modifications to a "small deer like" land animal, to create a significantly different huge very successful deep sea mammal. :rolleyes:

What part of the limb to flipper to tail thing went zooming over your head? You think the random mutation would be a deer born with a fully functional whale tail?

[OldMercsRule]

What part of the limb to flipper to tail thing went zooming over your head? You think the random mutation would be a deer born with a fully functional whale tail?

A seal and a whale are unrelated organisms according to yer religion: Einstein the clown. :laugh2:

The appearence on earth of the whale is 50 million years ago, (when they hit the ol' water), and the seal 15 million years ago, again: according to yer religion, and I provided the cites that maybe you were too lazy ta read.

Hit the books: clown. :laugh2:

One more time:

The two fully developed NON TRANSITIONAL modern mammals, (seals and whales), are quite different in food sources, size, habitat and anatomical features. You maybe surprized to learn that whales don't even have "flippers": clown, (how the seals propel themselves), whales have fins. The structure of the two mammal's tails couldn't be more different, the whales being huge with a large horizontal structure, (the only way they can move in the water).

Here again is a list of features I gave Noir of whales absolutely necessary to survive in the deep ocean, that 50 million years ago a "small deer like" land mammal had to aquire one at a time to become a whale via random one by one mutations OVER TIME according to yer religion:


OH..... I see..... let's work through the list shall we:

#1: Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.

Now explain how a random mutation over time could lead to such an extremely complex lung with efficient oxygen echange? Not possible one random mutation at a time!

#2: A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.

How would the land animal, (pre goin' in the ol' water as your religion dictates), be able to compete on land with such a large powerful and very heavy tail........before the next random mutation caused the next necessary feature to be a successful whale....... hmmmmmmm???????

#3: Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.

Very complex organs with irreducible components that must all function together flawlessly for the eye to function. If he went in the water before this highly improbable developement from random one at a time mutation he would starve eh?

#4: Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.

Very complex organs highly improbable from random one at a time mutation!!!!!

#5: Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.

Can ya imagine the land animal walking around on land competing for survival with this feature????? I sure can't!!!

#6: Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.

A real advantage for land survival before the rest of those necessary random mutations showed up?????

#7: Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).

Kinda hard to make it as a whale without this feature, eh? How's the land animal survive and compete with the huge tail and blubber and fins if this feature doesn't show up right on time eh?

#8: Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.

Seems like a rather complex and very important feature unless ya don't think reproduction is important, eh????

#9: Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.

How do ya think that feature would work on land for superior competition, eh?

The majority of these features are absolutely necessary for pedestrian survival in a very competitive ocean that already had very successful organisms living in the sea 50 million years ago. NOT LOGICAL OR POSSIBLE one random mutation at a time.

You have to be a true believer unable to think outside the box to imagine this list of very necessary features (that would not work well on land at all), to all arrive just in time to make a successful whale from a previously successful land mammal from random one at a time mutations

In yer snarky criticizm of ID ya made up some siily chit ta mock ID.

Remember when ya made up this chit, clown? :lame2:


No, there is a difference between a theory and a scientific theory. There is this theory...the Keebler Theory wherein the universe emerged from a hollow tree where elves were churning out all the elements that make up everything. If you look at atomic structure, the particles are so tiny that only the little hands of magical elves could have worked with them. So you see, the Keebler Theory is the best explanantion of the hole in the big bang theory.

The Keebler Theory has as much going for it scientifically as ID.

Then ya made high brow claims that yer religion was verified by real (not pseudo) science n' proven "scientific methods". :rolleyes:

Claimin' some sorta snarky look down yer nose superoity of yer faith in evolution vs ID. :rolleyes:

Ya can't have yer cake and eat it too: clown. :laugh2:

Then in defense of yer religion ya pull seals outa yer arse n' claim it is "just too easy/ perfectly logical". :rolleyes:

As I said before: IT TAKES FAR MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE IN THE LOGICAL HAND STANDS NECESSARY TO ACCEPT EVOLUTION AS GOSPEL THEN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

This discussion of the evolution of the whale from a "small deer like" land mammal via one at a time over time random mutations makes that stretch of the imagination real obvious to even the dimmist of bulbs. :rolleyes:

What a clown. :laugh2:


On a serious note: some form of Evolution may have happened, (see ID). The mechanism of one by one random mutations over time is surely false, and the theory needs major modifications to fit now known observations of irreducable complexity and the fossil record.

Rapid systemic modification of organisms must occur to fit observations.

The faith neccessary to maintain this failed theory is incredible.

[Missileman]

A seal and a whale are unrelated organisms according to yer religion: Einstein the clown. :laugh2:

The appearence on earth of the whale is 50 million years ago, (when they hit the ol' water), and the seal 15 million years ago, again: according to yer religion, and I provided the cites that maybe you were too lazy ta read.

Hit the books: clown. :laugh2:

One more time:

The two fully developed NON TRANSITIONAL modern mammals, (seals and whales), are quite different in food sources, size, habitat and anatomical features. You maybe surprized to learn that whales don't even have "flippers": clown, (how the seals propel themselves), whales have fins. The structure of the two mammal's tails couldn't be more different, the whales being huge with a large horizontal structure, (the only way they can move in the water).

Here again is a list of features I gave Noir of whales absolutely necessary to survive in the deep ocean, that 50 million years ago a "small deer like" land mammal had to aquire one at a time to become a whale via random one by one mutations OVER TIME according to yer religion:



In yer snarky criticizm of ID ya made up some siily chit ta mock ID.

Remember when ya made up this chit, clown? :lame2:



Then ya made high brow claims that yer religion was verified by real (not pseudo) science n' proven "scientific methods". :rolleyes:

Claimin' some sorta snarky look down yer nose superoity of yer faith in evolution vs ID. :rolleyes:

Ya can't have yer cake and eat it too: clown. :laugh2:

Then in defense of yer religion ya pull seals outa yer arse n' claim it is "just too easy/ perfectly logical". :rolleyes:

As I said before: IT TAKES FAR MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE IN THE LOGICAL HAND STANDS NECESSARY TO ACCEPT EVOLUTION AS GOSPEL THEN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

This discussion of the evolution of the whale from a "small deer like" land mammal via one at a time over time random mutations makes that stretch of the imagination real obvious to even the dimmist of bulbs. :rolleyes:

What a clown. :laugh2:

I didn't put seals up because I was trying to say they are related to whales. I put them up as an example of flippers developing from limbs previously used to walk on land. It's no giant leap from that to an animal with flippers evolving into an animal with a tail.

[OldMercsRule]

I didn't put seals up because I was trying to say they are related to whales. I put them up as an example of flippers developing from limbs previously used to walk on land. It's no giant leap from that to an animal with flippers evolving into an animal with a tail.

I have less of a logic problem with the deer to seal transition then the deer to whale. That said: it didn't happen according to science.

That is a demonstration of the huge problem with obvious religious beliefs in Darwin's evolution for me, (that seems to not be a problem for true believers like you and Noir).

Observations do not fit the theory at all and modern science is making things worse discovery by discovery, (especially the random one at a time over time mutation mechanism). Why can't you see that?

When the Greeks/Chinese/Persians proposed the observation philosophy based theory (before modern science) and discoveries of the fossil record, (Cambrian explosion), the logic of deer to seal to whale could be imagined as long as the mechanism for change was both very rapid and orderly. Not random mutations one at a time over time, (each mutation creating a stand alone improvement of the survival of the organism before the next one at a time mutation).

The similarities of part time land dwelling seals to land mammals is not the stretch that deer to whales is. That said: the science, (which I do accept BTW), states that did not occur.

Seal to whale is just as big of a stretch as from a deer, (IMHO), due to the unique and distinct features of the whales competing in a sea full of advanced competitors.

Evolution and modern science makes the clear cut claim of "small deer like" land mammal to whale. That makes the scientific observations challange the basic mechanism of the religion of Darwinian evolution.

The theory is a long way from irrefutably proven.

I will admit that this debate has forced me to look deeper into evolution then I had done before, so I thank you and Noir for the lesson.

Respectfully, JR

[Noir]

Good day all, my apologies for not being able to made the post I intended to today, however my old employer back home was having some staff trouble so I have come in to work for her, I will make my post as soon as I can, which looks likly to be Thursday, I'm sure you are all most disapointed to have to wait lol.

[Missileman]

I have less of a logic problem with the deer to seal transition then the deer to whale. That said: it didn't happen according to science.

That is a demonstration of the huge problem with obvious religious beliefs in Darwin's evolution for me, (that seems to not be a problem for true believers like you and Noir).

Observations do not fit the theory at all and modern science is making things worse discovery by discovery, (especially the random one at a time over time mutation mechanism). Why can't you see that?

When the Greeks/Chinese/Persians proposed the observation philosophy based theory (before modern science) and discoveries of the fossil record, (Cambrian explosion), the logic of deer to seal to whale could be imagined as long as the mechanism for change was both very rapid and orderly. Not random mutations one at a time over time, (each mutation creating a stand alone improvement of the survival of the organism before the next one at a time mutation).

The similarities of part time land dwelling seals to land mammals is not the stretch that deer to whales is. That said: the science, (which I do accept BTW), states that did not occur.

Seal to whale is just as big of a stretch as from a deer, (IMHO), due to the unique and distinct features of the whales competing in a sea full of advanced competitors.

Evolution and modern science makes the clear cut claim of "small deer like" land mammal to whale. That makes the scientific observations challange the basic mechanism of the religion of Darwinian evolution.

The theory is a long way from irrefutably proven.

I will admit that this debate has forced me to look deeper into evolution then I had done before, so I thank you and Noir for the lesson.

Respectfully, JR

The transition wasn't straight from deer to whale. It would have been more like deer to something seal-like, then to whale in tiny graduated stages over millions of years.

[OldMercsRule]

The transition wasn't straight from deer to whale. It would have been more like deer to something seal-like, then to whale in tiny graduated stages over millions of years.

Nope that is not what the Archeologists say.

Yer jus' makin' chit up again. :rolleyes:

Ya like to debate that way eh? :laugh2:

Hit the books; I provided cites before. :laugh2:

Seals are very dissimilar to whales.

Whales don't have flippers at all yer just maken chit up. :rolleyes:

The tales of the two water mammals are totally and obviously very different in primary structure and purpose as well.

The whale's only means of moving through the water is with their tales, as they don't have flippers; they have fins.

Whales are a very specialized deep sea mammal that require the very specialized features that seals and "small deer like" land mammals very clearly lack.

It is hard to imagine survival of whales, ("in tiny graduated stages over millions of years" :laugh2: ), without the full compliment of these features in a very competitive ocean.

Furthermore some of these whale features showing up at random times in random order "over millions of years" would hurt the survival of the transition organisms that could not possibly be functional or competitive.

That clearly challanges the one random mutation at a time over time mechanism of your religion to free thinkers (of which you clearly are not). :laugh2:

Single celled life is not simple at all, (as Darwin assumed).

Only the foolish adherance to the religion by people as full of kool aid as you keep this failed theory alive. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Missileman]

Nope that is not what the Archeologists say.


First, it would be a paleontologist, not an archeologist. But PLEASE post a link from any that says that the deer morphed straight into a full-blown whale.

[Missileman]

Hey Merc...maybe you should focus that one brain cell here for a few minutes. It does a very good job of explaining all of the intermediate stages between the "deer" Pakicetus and modern whales.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/

[Missileman]

Someone turn down the crickets! Please!

[OldMercsRule]

First, it would be a paleontologist, not an archeologist.

You are correct. Single cell brain fart.


But PLEASE post a link from any that says that the deer morphed straight into a full-blown whale.

Until Noir makes is post from the library, (if he follows through), I'm of the observation that you are hooked on your religion, and have a closed mind.

The dominate theory for both the majority of science and the mindless Evolution bots is Darwinism, (regardless of the faults I and others have exposed), and I had already read the web site you referenced in the next post just prior to the break out of crickets you whined about:

edwardtbabinski.us/whales

As I told Noir: I don't debate web sites or media articles, I will debate a free thinker, (however). You don't fit that discription, with your lazy debate style and I'm waiting to see if Noir can show some contemplative thinking that I shall reply to, provided that he follows through.

Random one at a time mutations over time doesn't fit observations of modern science where we have learned a single cell life form is very complex. Darwin didn't know that, and niether did the Greeks Chinese or Persians, butt: we now do. Evolution is clearly a failed theory although simpletons can still talk about how a deer could become a seal and then a whale. :rolleyes:

The science doesn't show that and it is a matter of time before another mechanism is proposed that better fits observations, that will likely be some sort of form of ID without the diety that offends Liberals and hair brains like you. At least Noir admits that there could be a God. Closed minds are no fun to debate, as they don't bring anything to the table. :rolleyes:

Paleontologists many times do not agree and your citation conflicts from other information as to the family tree of whales which is just the guess work of true belivers who work in the field and need to empress other true beliver peers with their work to get additional grants to corntinue their work. Catch 22. :rolleyes:

Many of those extinct anamals in the whale tree you are impressed by may have had complex organs and systems, (that would not have fit a one random mutation at a time either). In the case of modern whales the list of special unique features I listed defies a one at a time random mutation model, to anyone who has minimal brain function. :rolleyes:

The Cambrian period shows a massive explosion of life that is as cornplex as modern life. This does not fit Darwin's model and he knew that when he proposed his theory. Since 98% of all things that have lived on this planet are now extinct, (and since we were not there we can only speculate about asteroids or volcanos), as to the cause. Paleontologists put together their jig saw puzzels out of the fossil record to fit the model they whorship to gain more grants. At least they are paid to further this flawed theory. :rolleyes:

You can carry on if you wish with your lazy cites that I don't debate butt:
until Noir replys this horse is dead, unless you show your own origional thinking not the work of leaders of your religion that I can and many time have read their work on my own. I do get it: you are true believer :rolleyes:

[Missileman]

You are correct. Single cell brain fart.



Until Noir makes is post from the library, (if he follows through), I'm of the observation that you are hooked on your religion, and have a closed mind.

The dominate theory for both the majority of science and the mindless Evolution bots is Darwinism, (regardless of the faults I and others have exposed), and I had already read the web site you referenced in the next post just prior to the break out of crickets you whined about:

edwardtbabinski.us/whales

As I told Noir: I don't debate web sites or media articles, I will debate a free thinker, (however). You don't fit that discription, with your lazy debate style and I'm waiting to see if Noir can show some contemplative thinking that I shall reply to, provided that he follows through.

Random one at a time mutations over time doesn't fit observations of modern science where we have learned a single cell life form is very complex. Darwin didn't know that, and niether did the Greeks Chinese or Persians, butt: we now do. Evolution is clearly a failed theory although simpletons can still talk about how a deer could become a seal and then a whale. :rolleyes:

The science doesn't show that and it is a matter of time before another mechanism is proposed that better fits observations, that will likely be some sort of form of ID without the diety that offends Liberals and hair brains like you. At least Noir admits that there could be a God. Closed minds are no fun to debate, as they don't bring anything to the table. :rolleyes:

Paleontologists many times do not agree and your citation conflicts from other information as to the family tree of whales which is just the guess work of true belivers who work in the field and need to empress other true beliver peers with their work to get additional grants to corntinue their work. Catch 22. :rolleyes:

Many of those extinct anamals in the whale tree you are impressed by may have had complex organs and systems, (that would not have fit a one random mutation at a time either). In the case of modern whales the list of special unique features I listed defies a one at a time random mutation model, to anyone who has minimal brain function. :rolleyes:

The Cambrian period shows a massive explosion of life that is as cornplex as modern life. This does not fit Darwin's model and he knew that when he proposed his theory. Since 98% of all things that have lived on this planet are now extinct, (and since we were not there we can only speculate about asteroids or volcanos), as to the cause. Paleontologists put together their jig saw puzzels out of the fossil record to fit the model they whorship to gain more grants. At least they are paid to further this flawed theory. :rolleyes:

You can carry on if you wish with your lazy cites that I don't debate butt:
until Noir replys this horse is dead, unless you show your own origional thinking not the work of leaders of your religion that I can and many time have read their work on my own. I do get it: you are true believer :rolleyes:

Look...you make a claim that there are paleontologists who say the deer morphed straight into a whale. If you can't produce one, and are unwilling to retract the statement, I guess I'll have to assume that you are just making shit up as you go along. If you're also unwilling to review any supporting evidence that contradicts your made-up bullshit, I guess we're done.

This is where you make another bullshit claim that you've won this debate!

[OldMercsRule]

Look...you make a claim that there are paleontologists who say the deer morphed straight into a whale.

Show me where I said that.


If you can't produce one, and are unwilling to retract the statement, I guess I'll have to assume that you are just making shit up as you go along.

As I just said: show me where I said that.

I don't think I ever made that statement.

Ya been smokin' somethin' real strong tonight????

Maybe I could get some ta see the whacky chit you see????

Naw..... better not...... ony one functional brain cell and that chit must be some powerful chit!!! :eek: :D


If you're also unwilling to review any supporting evidence that contradicts your made-up bullshit, I guess we're done.

Fine with me. I read yer internet linc chit before ya posted it, (when I was doin' my home werk); so I didn't need to read it again.


This is where you make another bullshit claim that you've won this debate!

Yup I sure did....now that ya mention it. :D

[Missileman]

Show me where I said that.



As I just said: show me where I said that.

I don't think I ever made that statement.

Ya been smokin' somethin' real strong tonight????

Maybe I could get some ta see the whacky chit you see????

Naw..... better not...... ony one functional brain cell and that chit must be some powerful chit!!! :eek: :D



Fine with me. I read yer internet linc chit before ya posted it, (when I was doin' my home werk); so I didn't need to read it again.



Yup I sure did....now that ya mention it. :D

Look at the first line of post #180. So who is smokin what?

[OldMercsRule]

Look at the first line of post #180.


Originally Posted by Missileman
Look...

Yer claimin the first post of 180 says this:


you make a claim that there are paleontologists who say the deer morphed straight into a whale.

I don't read it that way at all. I was denyin' yer made up deer to seal chit: Einstein.

Put down the pipe fer a bit and read the whole reply again fer the corntext:

If ya still don't get it..... let the smoke clear and go back a few more to where ya said some real silly chit "just too easy"....... :laugh2::laugh2:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileman
The transition wasn't straight from deer to whale. It would have been more like deer to something seal-like, then to whale in tiny graduated stages over millions of years.

Nope that is not what the Archeologists say. (Paleontologists, brain fart)

Yer jus' makin' chit up again.

Ya like to debate that way eh?

Hit the books; I provided cites before.

Seals are very dissimilar to whales.

Whales don't have flippers at all yer just maken chit up.

The tales of the two water mammals are totally and obviously very different in primary structure and purpose as well.

The whale's only means of moving through the water is with their tales, as they don't have flippers; they have fins.

Whales are a very specialized deep sea mammal that require the very specialized features that seals and "small deer like" land mammals very clearly lack.

It is hard to imagine survival of whales, ("in tiny graduated stages over millions of years" ), without the full compliment of these features in a very competitive ocean.

Furthermore some of these whale features showing up at random times in random order "over millions of years" would hurt the survival of the transition organisms that could not possibly be functional or competitive.

That clearly challanges the one random mutation at a time over time mechanism of your religion to free thinkers (of which you clearly are not).

Single celled life is not simple at all, (as Darwin assumed).

Only the foolish adherance to the religion by people as full of kool aid as you keep this failed theory alive.


So who is smokin what?

You must be smokin' somethin' powerful.

Yer not always like this are you? :eek:

[Missileman]

Yer claimin the first post of 180 says this:



[COLOR="blue"]I don't read it that way at all. I was denyin' yer made up deer to seal chit: Einstein.



It isn't made up deer shit...there were several stages between the deer and whale, including those with flippers. I said the stages exist, and you said "that's not what archeologists say". When pressed to provide links to scientists who deny the existence of the intermediary stages, you play dumb...not that you haven't been playing dumb the whole thread mind you.

[OldMercsRule]

It isn't made up deer shit...

The post 180 yer whinnin' about was in response to this stunning piece of work:



Let me introduce you to the seal...really...just too easy.

While you're at it, explain why an intelligent designer would make a fish that can't breathe underwater.

I was not denying that scientists made up "stages" to fit the failed theory out of complete mammals they claim were related, (and they don't agree on the "stages" either).



there were several stages between the deer and whale, including those with flippers.

I know what the true believer scientists who need grants from their true believer peers do. I had read the cite you gave prior to my reply in 180, which was to your claim that whales came from seals.

The net is full of competing evolution theories. Their "stages" are also complete mammals that may or may not have evolved into whales.

The theory still doesn't fit observations and each feature of each "stage" animal is also irrudicably complex to fit the one mutation at a time mechanism that flat doesn't work.


I said the stages exist, and you said "that's not what archeologists say".

That post was about your claim that the whale came from the seal, which I quoted above.


When pressed to provide links to scientists who deny the existence of the intermediary stages, you play dumb...not that you haven't been playing dumb the whole thread mind you.

I never said scientists deny intermediary stages, I said whales did not come from seals.

[Missileman]

The post 180 yer whinnin' about was in response to this stunning piece of work:




I was not denying that scientists made up "stages" to fit the failed theory out of complete mammals they claim were related, (and they don't agree on the "stages" either).

More made up bullsit on your part.




I know what the true believer scientists who need grants from their true believer peers do. I had read the cite you gave prior to my reply in 180, which was to your claim that whales came from seals.

I made no such claim. I brought the seal into the argument as an example of a mostly aquatic animal whose ancestors were land animals as you made the totally retarded argument that the whale's ancestor had to have developed a full tail BEFORE moving into the water.


[COLOR="blue"]The net is full of competing evolution theories. Their "stages" are also complete mammals that may or may not have evolved into whales.

The theory still doesn't fit observations and each feature of each "stage" animal is also irrudicably complex to fit the one mutation at a time mechanism that flat doesn't work.

You keep bringing a religious theory into a discussion about a scientific one.



That post was about your claim that the whale came from the seal, which I quoted above.



I never said scientists deny intermediary stages, I said whales did not come from seals.

Again, I didn't claim that whales came from seals.

[OldMercsRule]

Again, I didn't claim that whales came from seals.

Originally Posted by Missileman
Let me introduce you to the seal...really...just too easy.

While you're at it, explain why an intelligent designer would make a fish that can't breathe underwater.


That the way I read it.

[Missileman]

Originally Posted by Missileman
Let me introduce you to the seal...really...just too easy.

While you're at it, explain why an intelligent designer would make a fish that can't breathe underwater.


That the way I read it.

You read it wrong.

[OldMercsRule]

You read it wrong.


That is the way you said it.

[Missileman]

That is the way you said it.

You are removing the context of your insisting in post 165 that the ancestor of the whale had to become a whale in one giant leap with a fully functional whale tail, blow hole, giant lung capacity, etc BEFORE moving into the water. A seal is a perfect example of how that argument holds no water...that there would have been intermediate stages that like the seal was comfortable both on land and in water.

[OldMercsRule]

You are removing the context of your insisting in post 165 that the ancestor of the whale had to become a whale in one giant leap with a fully functional whale tail, blow hole, giant lung capacity, etc BEFORE moving into the water. A seal is a perfect example of how that argument holds no water...that there would have been intermediate stages that like the seal was comfortable both on land and in water.

On post 165 you stuck yer nose into post 162 and took a snippet which was interplay between myself and Noir from post 160. Ya said this silly chit in post 165 which I ridiculed: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:



Originally Posted (post 165) by Missileman
Do you really think the whale developed a full tail before figuring out that it needed to live in the water?

My reply to the above cracked statement in post 165 :laugh2: was as follows:


The whale figured out all by itself that it needed to live in the water yer sayin??????? LOLOLOLOL

You then became bozo the clown hisself :laugh2: with this little jewel in a subsequent post, (169):



Originally Posted by Missileman
Let me introduce you to the seal...really...just too easy.

While you're at it, explain why an intelligent designer would make a fish that can't breathe underwater.

As I said earlier: you debate like a lazy clown :laugh2: with cute little cracked statements that are hard to take serious, (which I didn't and don't).

I guess yer sooooo embarrased about yer past silly statements that ya feeeeeeel the need to rehash the same silly chit since yer bringin' it up over and over again trying to make points with the ridicule I aimed at you due to yer silly statements that whales figured out all by themselves that they needed to live in the water, and the whale came from the seal.

Here is a serious discussion of your "stages" of Darwin's religion where true believers lookin' fer grant money from other evolution believers pick and choose fossils that are likely not related to whales at all.

Cetaceans have many unique features to enable them to live in water. For example:

Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.
A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.
Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.
Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.
Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.
Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.
Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).
Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.
Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.


Many cetaceans find objects by echo-location. They have a sonar system which is so precise that it's the envy of the U.S. Navy. It can detect a fish the size of a golf ball 230 feet (70 m) away. It took an expert in chaos theory to show that the dolphin's ‘click’ pattern is mathematically designed to give the best information.1

One amazing feature of most echo-locating dolphins and small whales is the ‘melon,’ a fatty protrusion on the forehead. This ‘melon’ is actually a sound lens—a sophisticated structure designed to focus the emitted sound waves into a beam which the dolphin can direct where it likes. This sound lens depends on the fact that different lipids (fatty compounds) bend the ultrasonic sound waves traveling through them in different ways. The different lipids have to be arranged in the right shape and sequence in order to focus the returning sound echoes. Each separate lipid is unique and different from normal blubber lipids, and is made by a complicated chemical process, requiring a number of different enzymes.2

For such an organ to have evolved, random mutations must have formed the right enzymes to make the right lipids, and other mutations must have caused the lipids to be deposited in the right place and shape. A gradual step-by-step evolution of the organ is not feasible, because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been of no use. Therefore, natural selection would not have favored incomplete intermediate forms.
Missing links
Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’

However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. However, Teaching about Evolution is intended as a polemic for evolution. So it reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith. On page 18 there is a nice picture of an alleged transitional series between land mammals and whales (drawn at roughly the same size without telling readers that some of the creatures were hugely different in size—see the section about Basilosaurus in this chapter). This appears to be derived from an article in Discover magazine.4 The Discover list (below) is identical to the Teaching about Evolution series except that the latter has Basilosaurus as the fourth creature and the Discover list has ‘dates’:

Mesonychid (55 million years ago)
Ambulocetus (50 million years ago)
Rodhocetus (46 million years ago)
Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago)
One thing to note is the lack of time for the vast number of changes to occur by mutation and selection. If a mutation results in a new gene, for this new gene to replace the old gene in a population, the individuals carrying the old gene must be eliminated, and this takes time. Population genetics calculations suggest that in 5 million years (one million years longer than the alleged time between Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus), animals with generation lines of about ten years (typical of whales) could substitute no more than about 1,700 mutations.5 This is not nearly enough to generate the new information that whales need for aquatic life, even assuming that all the hypothetical information-adding mutations required for this could somehow arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.)

Ambulocetus

(A) Reconstruction of Ambulocetus, ‘at the end of the power stroke during swimming.’7 The stippled bones were all that were found, and the shaded ones were found 5 m above the rest.
(B) With the ‘additions’ removed there really isn't much left of Ambulocetus!

The second in this ‘transitional series’ is the 7-foot (2 m) long Ambulocetus natans (‘walking whale that swims’). Like the secular media and more ‘popular’ science journals, Teaching about Evolution often presents nice neat stories to readers, not the ins and outs of the research methodology, including its limitations. The nice pictures of Ambulocetus natans in these publications are based on artists' imaginations, and should be compared with the actual bones found! The difference is illustrated well in the article A Whale of a Tale?6 This article shows that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammal to whale are (conveniently) missing (see diagram). Therefore, grand claims about the significance of the fossils cannot be critically evaluated. The evolutionary biologist Annalisa Berta commented on the Ambulocetus fossil:

Since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.7

Finally, it is dated more recently (by evolutionary dating methods) than undisputed whales, so is unlikely to be a walking ancestor of whales.

Basilosaurus
Basilosaurus isis (a.k.a. Zeuglodon) is the fourth and last postulated transitional form on page 18 of Teaching about Evolution. Basilosaurus is Greek for ‘king lizard,’ but it was actually a serpent-like sea mammal about 70 feet (21 m) long, with a 5-foot (1.5 m) long skull. It was 10 times as long as Ambulocetus, although the Teaching about Evolution book draws them at the same size—it helps give the desired (false) impression that there is a genuine transitional series.

However, Basilosaurus was fully aquatic, so hardly transitional between land mammals and whales. Also, Barbara Stahl, a vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist, points out:

The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [like Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales.

Both modern branches of whales, the toothed whales (Odontoceti) and baleen whales (Mysticeti), appear abruptly in the fossil record. Stahl points out the following regarding the skull structure in both types:

… shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its relatives: in conjunction with the backward migration of the nostrils on the dorsal surface of the head, the nasal bones have been reduced and carried upwards and the premaxillary and maxillary elements have expanded to the rear to cover the original braincase roof.8

Basilosaurus did have small hind limbs (certainly too small for walking), and Teaching Evolution says ‘they were thought to be non-functional.’ But they were probably used for grasping during copulation, according to even other evolutionists. For example, the evolutionary whale expert Philip Gingerich said, ‘It seems to me that they could only have been some kind of sexual and reproductive clasper.’9

Pakicetus


Top left: Gingerich’s first reconstruction10,12
Bottom left: what he had actually found10,12
Top right: more complete skeleton13
Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction15

Pakicetus inachus is yet another candidate as an intermediate between whales and land mammals in the eyes of some evolutionists. According to evolutionary ‘dating’ methods it is 52 million years old. Since some educational publications have also claimed Pakicetus is transitional (see diagram), it is worth discussing although it is absent from Teaching about Evolution. This indicates that its authors don't believe Pakicetus is a good example of an intermediate. This could be because Pakicetus is known only from some cheek teeth and fragments of the skull and lower jaw, so we have no way of knowing whether its locomotion was transitional. The diagram shows the imaginative reconstruction taught to schoolteachers and on the cover of Science, compared to the reality as reported in the same issue. Note that only the stippled parts of the skull represent actual fossil evidence, while the rest is ‘reconstructed.’ But we do know that its hearing mechanism was that of a land mammal and that it was found in fluvial sediments with other land animals.10 So the evidence shows that it was probably a land mammal, not a transitional form.11

After I first wrote Refuting Evolution, new research has blown away this reconstruction. This demonstrates an oft-repeated phenomenon in evolutionary paleontology. Many of the alleged transitional forms are based on fragmentary remains, which are therefore open to several interpretations, based on one’s axioms. Evolutionary bias means that such remains are often likely to be interpreted as transitional, as with Gingerich, and is also prevalent in ape-man claims. But when more bones are discovered, then the fossils nearly always fit one type or another, and are no longer plausible as transitional. It’s also notable that alleged intermediate forms are often trumpeted in the media, while retractions are usually muted or unpublicized.

A prominent whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues unearthed some more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature.13 The commentary on this paper in the same issue14 says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’ (See illustration, above right.) This is very different from Gingerich’s picture of an aquatic animal! But the evolutionary bias is still clear, describing Pakicetus as a ‘terrestrial cetacean’ and saying, ‘The first whales were fully terrestrial, and were even efficient runners.’ But the term ‘whale’ becomes meaningless if it can describe land mammals, and it provides no insight into how true marine whales supposedly evolved.

Also, ‘solid anatomical data’ contradict previous theories of whale ancestry. The news article Fossil Finds Show Whales Related to Early Pigs says:

‘Until now paleontologists thought whales had evolved from mesonychians, an extinct group of land-dwelling carnivores, while molecular scientists studying DNA were convinced they descended from artiodactyls [even-toed ungulates].

‘“The paleontologists, and I am one of them, were wrong,” Gingerich said.’

Such candor is commendable, and it shows the fallacy of trusting alleged ‘proofs’ of evolution. Pity that Gingerich is still committed to materialistic evolutionism.

G.A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales, has expressed serious doubts as to whether creatures like Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, and others—even if accepted as aquatic mammals—can properly be considered ancestors of modern whales. He sees them instead as a completely isolated group.16

Vestigial legs?
Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called ‘remnants’ are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution.17 As with the allegedly functionless limbs of Basilosaurus, we should not assume that ignorance of a function means there is no function.

One myth promulgated by some evolutionists says that some whales have been found with hind legs, complete with thigh and knee muscles. However, this story probably grew by legendary accretion from a true account of a real sperm whale with a 5.5 inch (14 cm) bump with a 5-inch (12 cm) piece of bone inside. Sperm whales are typically about 62 feet (19 m) long, so this abnormal piece of bone is minute in comparison with the whale—this hardly qualifies as a ‘leg!’18

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution

The above discussion ^^^^ (bold and red added for emphasis), soundly refutes yer religions' "stages" of random one at a time mutations with pieced together fossils that actually don't fit observations and are prolly not related to whales at all.

This is the type of serious debate as I was having with Noir about whale evolution when ya said yer two silly statements to get us on this tangent and you are now trying to again debate my ridicule of you and your clown statements. :rolleyes:

Either give it up and accept the fact that you are just a lazy clown who says silly chit, :laugh2: or get serious and explain how the unique features of whales could have possibly come from one at a time random mutations over time, (as Noir claimed he would do butt: musta forgotten (or found out when he visited the Library that his evolution religion is cracked), and gave up.

How can ya blame the young lad? :D

Sorry your Darwinian religion fails, and ya lost the debate that it is irrefutably proven.

[Missileman]

On post 165 you stuck yer nose into post 162 and took a snippet which was interplay between myself and Noir from post 160. Ya said this silly chit in post 165 which I ridiculed: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:



My reply to the above cracked statement in post 165 :laugh2: was as follows:



You then became bozo the clown hisself :laugh2: with this little jewel in a subsequent post, (169):



As I said earlier: you debate like a lazy clown :laugh2: with cute little cracked statements that are hard to take serious, (which I didn't and don't).

I guess yer sooooo embarrased about yer past silly statements that ya feeeeeeel the need to rehash the same silly chit since yer bringin' it up over and over again trying to make points with the ridicule I aimed at you due to yer silly statements that whales figured out all by themselves that they needed to live in the water, and the whale came from the seal.

Here is a serious discussion of your "stages" of Darwin's religion where true believers lookin' fer grant money from other evolution believers pick and choose fossils that are likely not related to whales at all.

Cetaceans have many unique features to enable them to live in water. For example:

Enormous lung capacity with efficient oxygen exchange for long dives.
A powerful tail with large horizontal flukes enabling very strong swimming.
Eyes designed to see properly in water with its far higher refractive index, and withstand high pressure.
Ears designed differently from those of land mammals that pick up airborne sound waves and with the eardrum protected from high pressure.
Skin lacking hair and sweat glands but incorporating fibrous, fatty blubber.
Whale fins and tongues have counter-current heat exchangers to minimize heat loss.
Nostrils on the top of the head (blowholes).
Specially fitting mouth and nipples so the baby can be breast-fed underwater.
Baleen whales have sheets of baleen (whalebone) that hang from the roof of the mouth and filter plankton for food.


Many cetaceans find objects by echo-location. They have a sonar system which is so precise that it's the envy of the U.S. Navy. It can detect a fish the size of a golf ball 230 feet (70 m) away. It took an expert in chaos theory to show that the dolphin's ‘click’ pattern is mathematically designed to give the best information.1

One amazing feature of most echo-locating dolphins and small whales is the ‘melon,’ a fatty protrusion on the forehead. This ‘melon’ is actually a sound lens—a sophisticated structure designed to focus the emitted sound waves into a beam which the dolphin can direct where it likes. This sound lens depends on the fact that different lipids (fatty compounds) bend the ultrasonic sound waves traveling through them in different ways. The different lipids have to be arranged in the right shape and sequence in order to focus the returning sound echoes. Each separate lipid is unique and different from normal blubber lipids, and is made by a complicated chemical process, requiring a number of different enzymes.2

For such an organ to have evolved, random mutations must have formed the right enzymes to make the right lipids, and other mutations must have caused the lipids to be deposited in the right place and shape. A gradual step-by-step evolution of the organ is not feasible, because until the lipids were fully formed and at least partly in the right place and shape, they would have been of no use. Therefore, natural selection would not have favored incomplete intermediate forms.
Missing links
Evolutionists believe that whales evolved from some form of land mammal. According to Teaching about Evolution, page 18, they ‘evolved from a primitive group of hoofed mammals called Mesonychids.’

However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail's sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.’3

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared. However, Teaching about Evolution is intended as a polemic for evolution. So it reconstructs some recent fossil discoveries to support the whale evolution stories that Slijper believed on faith. On page 18 there is a nice picture of an alleged transitional series between land mammals and whales (drawn at roughly the same size without telling readers that some of the creatures were hugely different in size—see the section about Basilosaurus in this chapter). This appears to be derived from an article in Discover magazine.4 The Discover list (below) is identical to the Teaching about Evolution series except that the latter has Basilosaurus as the fourth creature and the Discover list has ‘dates’:

Mesonychid (55 million years ago)
Ambulocetus (50 million years ago)
Rodhocetus (46 million years ago)
Prozeuglodon (40 million years ago)
One thing to note is the lack of time for the vast number of changes to occur by mutation and selection. If a mutation results in a new gene, for this new gene to replace the old gene in a population, the individuals carrying the old gene must be eliminated, and this takes time. Population genetics calculations suggest that in 5 million years (one million years longer than the alleged time between Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus), animals with generation lines of about ten years (typical of whales) could substitute no more than about 1,700 mutations.5 This is not nearly enough to generate the new information that whales need for aquatic life, even assuming that all the hypothetical information-adding mutations required for this could somehow arise. (And as shown in chapter 9, real science shows that this cannot occur.)

Ambulocetus

(A) Reconstruction of Ambulocetus, ‘at the end of the power stroke during swimming.’7 The stippled bones were all that were found, and the shaded ones were found 5 m above the rest.
(B) With the ‘additions’ removed there really isn't much left of Ambulocetus!

The second in this ‘transitional series’ is the 7-foot (2 m) long Ambulocetus natans (‘walking whale that swims’). Like the secular media and more ‘popular’ science journals, Teaching about Evolution often presents nice neat stories to readers, not the ins and outs of the research methodology, including its limitations. The nice pictures of Ambulocetus natans in these publications are based on artists' imaginations, and should be compared with the actual bones found! The difference is illustrated well in the article A Whale of a Tale?6 This article shows that the critical skeletal elements necessary to establish the transition from non-swimming land mammal to whale are (conveniently) missing (see diagram). Therefore, grand claims about the significance of the fossils cannot be critically evaluated. The evolutionary biologist Annalisa Berta commented on the Ambulocetus fossil:

Since the pelvic girdle is not preserved, there is no direct evidence in Ambulocetus for a connection between the hind limbs and the axial skeleton. This hinders interpretations of locomotion in this animal, since many of the muscles that support and move the hindlimb originate on the pelvis.7

Finally, it is dated more recently (by evolutionary dating methods) than undisputed whales, so is unlikely to be a walking ancestor of whales.

Basilosaurus
Basilosaurus isis (a.k.a. Zeuglodon) is the fourth and last postulated transitional form on page 18 of Teaching about Evolution. Basilosaurus is Greek for ‘king lizard,’ but it was actually a serpent-like sea mammal about 70 feet (21 m) long, with a 5-foot (1.5 m) long skull. It was 10 times as long as Ambulocetus, although the Teaching about Evolution book draws them at the same size—it helps give the desired (false) impression that there is a genuine transitional series.

However, Basilosaurus was fully aquatic, so hardly transitional between land mammals and whales. Also, Barbara Stahl, a vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist, points out:

The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar shape of the cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes [like Basilosaurus] could not possibly have been the ancestor of modern whales.

Both modern branches of whales, the toothed whales (Odontoceti) and baleen whales (Mysticeti), appear abruptly in the fossil record. Stahl points out the following regarding the skull structure in both types:

… shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its relatives: in conjunction with the backward migration of the nostrils on the dorsal surface of the head, the nasal bones have been reduced and carried upwards and the premaxillary and maxillary elements have expanded to the rear to cover the original braincase roof.8

Basilosaurus did have small hind limbs (certainly too small for walking), and Teaching Evolution says ‘they were thought to be non-functional.’ But they were probably used for grasping during copulation, according to even other evolutionists. For example, the evolutionary whale expert Philip Gingerich said, ‘It seems to me that they could only have been some kind of sexual and reproductive clasper.’9

Pakicetus


Top left: Gingerich’s first reconstruction10,12
Bottom left: what he had actually found10,12
Top right: more complete skeleton13
Bottom right: more reasonable reconstruction15

Pakicetus inachus is yet another candidate as an intermediate between whales and land mammals in the eyes of some evolutionists. According to evolutionary ‘dating’ methods it is 52 million years old. Since some educational publications have also claimed Pakicetus is transitional (see diagram), it is worth discussing although it is absent from Teaching about Evolution. This indicates that its authors don't believe Pakicetus is a good example of an intermediate. This could be because Pakicetus is known only from some cheek teeth and fragments of the skull and lower jaw, so we have no way of knowing whether its locomotion was transitional. The diagram shows the imaginative reconstruction taught to schoolteachers and on the cover of Science, compared to the reality as reported in the same issue. Note that only the stippled parts of the skull represent actual fossil evidence, while the rest is ‘reconstructed.’ But we do know that its hearing mechanism was that of a land mammal and that it was found in fluvial sediments with other land animals.10 So the evidence shows that it was probably a land mammal, not a transitional form.11

After I first wrote Refuting Evolution, new research has blown away this reconstruction. This demonstrates an oft-repeated phenomenon in evolutionary paleontology. Many of the alleged transitional forms are based on fragmentary remains, which are therefore open to several interpretations, based on one’s axioms. Evolutionary bias means that such remains are often likely to be interpreted as transitional, as with Gingerich, and is also prevalent in ape-man claims. But when more bones are discovered, then the fossils nearly always fit one type or another, and are no longer plausible as transitional. It’s also notable that alleged intermediate forms are often trumpeted in the media, while retractions are usually muted or unpublicized.

A prominent whale expert, Thewissen, and colleagues unearthed some more bones of Pakicetus, and published their work in the journal Nature.13 The commentary on this paper in the same issue14 says, ‘All the postcranial bones indicate that pakicetids were land mammals, and … indicate that the animals were runners, with only their feet touching the ground.’ (See illustration, above right.) This is very different from Gingerich’s picture of an aquatic animal! But the evolutionary bias is still clear, describing Pakicetus as a ‘terrestrial cetacean’ and saying, ‘The first whales were fully terrestrial, and were even efficient runners.’ But the term ‘whale’ becomes meaningless if it can describe land mammals, and it provides no insight into how true marine whales supposedly evolved.

Also, ‘solid anatomical data’ contradict previous theories of whale ancestry. The news article Fossil Finds Show Whales Related to Early Pigs says:

‘Until now paleontologists thought whales had evolved from mesonychians, an extinct group of land-dwelling carnivores, while molecular scientists studying DNA were convinced they descended from artiodactyls [even-toed ungulates].

‘“The paleontologists, and I am one of them, were wrong,” Gingerich said.’

Such candor is commendable, and it shows the fallacy of trusting alleged ‘proofs’ of evolution. Pity that Gingerich is still committed to materialistic evolutionism.

G.A. Mchedlidze, a Russian expert on whales, has expressed serious doubts as to whether creatures like Pakicetus and Ambulocetus, and others—even if accepted as aquatic mammals—can properly be considered ancestors of modern whales. He sees them instead as a completely isolated group.16

Vestigial legs?
Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called ‘remnants’ are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution.17 As with the allegedly functionless limbs of Basilosaurus, we should not assume that ignorance of a function means there is no function.

One myth promulgated by some evolutionists says that some whales have been found with hind legs, complete with thigh and knee muscles. However, this story probably grew by legendary accretion from a true account of a real sperm whale with a 5.5 inch (14 cm) bump with a 5-inch (12 cm) piece of bone inside. Sperm whales are typically about 62 feet (19 m) long, so this abnormal piece of bone is minute in comparison with the whale—this hardly qualifies as a ‘leg!’18

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution

The above discussion ^^^^ (bold and red added for emphasis), soundly refutes yer religions' "stages" of random one at a time mutations with pieced together fossils that actually don't fit observations and are prolly not related to whales at all.

This is the type of serious debate as I was having with Noir about whale evolution when ya said yer two silly statements to get us on this tangent and you are now trying to again debate my ridicule of you and your clown statements. :rolleyes:

Either give it up and accept the fact that you are just a lazy clown who says silly chit, :laugh2: or get serious and explain how the unique features of whales could have possibly come from one at a time random mutations over time, (as Noir claimed he would do butt: musta forgotten (or found out when he visited the Library that his evolution religion is cracked), and gave up.

How can ya blame the young lad? :D

Sorry your Darwinian religion fails, and ya lost the debate that it is irrefutably proven.

Most of this post of yours is fantasy. You were responding to me in post 165. Noir had nothing to do with your retarded assertion nor with my pointing out that seals are a perfect analogy of an animal that transitioned from life on land to an aquatic life without developing into a full blown fish. Something you seem to think impossible in the evolution of whales.

FYI shithead...I haven't claimed once in this thread that evolution has been irrefutably proven.

[PostmodernProphet]

Most of this post of yours is fantasy. You were responding to me in post 165. Noir had nothing to do with your retarded assertion nor with my pointing out that seals are a perfect analogy of an animal that transitioned from life on land to an aquatic life without developing into a full blown fish. Something you seem to think impossible in the evolution of whales.

FYI shithead...I haven't claimed once in this thread that evolution has been irrefutably proven.

I haven't been following the thread for several pages, but I can tell from Miss's response he must be losing.....he's getting testy......

[Missileman]

Hey Merc...2 questions:

1. Early in the thread you were quite content to accept the mechanics of evolution as long as your creator was allowed to "make" the ancestor. When I argued against ID, you changed your position to a total denial of evolutionary processes. Do you think that makes you look rational?

2. What kind of idiot "designer" would make a fish that can't breathe under water? Kinda like designing a boat that can't float IMO.

[OldMercsRule]

Most of this post of yours is fantasy.

Nope, obviously it was a mistake to make a serious reply to a lazy clown. :laugh2:


You were responding to me in post 165.

With ridicule and sarcasm to this silly claim you made:


(post 165)
Do you really think the whale developed a full tail before figuring out that it needed to live in the water?

:laugh2:


Noir had nothing to do with your retarded assertion

The sarcasm and ridicule was pointed at you: clown. :laugh2:


nor with my pointing out that seals are a perfect analogy of an animal that transitioned from life on land to an aquatic life

There ya go again: clown, seals are a distinct very different fully developed mammal appearing 35 million years after whales and have nothing at all to do with whales. You just see yer silly religion everywhere: Bozo. :laugh2:


without developing into a full blown fish.

FULL BLOWN FISH????????? Whaaaaaaaaat??????? Now ya think fish are whales in yer silly religion????????? Now yer givin' Bozo a bad name.......... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL :laugh2:


Something you seem to think impossible in the evolution of whales.

Your are such a lazy clown, ya obviously didn't read the last post did ya???:laugh2:


FYI shithead...I haven't claimed once in this thread that evolution has been irrefutably proven.

Yer right I have won this debate and Darwin's religion of evolution is not "irefutably proven", thanks for the admission!!!!!!

N' yer sooooo lazy ya prolly didn't read the title of the thread either, (which this entire debate has been about).

[OldMercsRule]

I haven't been following the thread for several pages, but I can tell from Miss's response he must be losing.....he's getting testy......

Yup this clown chit he is obsessed with is boring. Sorry.

[OldMercsRule]

Hey Merc...2 questions:

1. Early in the thread you were quite content to accept the mechanics of evolution as long as your creator was allowed to "make" the ancestor.

Intra species evolution for survival seems to be a mechanism the designer used as a ingrained basic survival aspect of all observed life that was created, (as all observed life is far too complex to have suddenly appeared from a zap in a warm pond of ammino acids). A huge flaw in yer religion.

Bacteria seems to change (within a broad varation allowed) in that basic design of bacteria to survive various chemical assualts or other challenges in the environment. That said: a bacteria doesn't become a horse or fish :laugh2: or some such; it is still bacteria at the end of the day.

The huge challange for your religion of evolution, (which requires far more faith then ID), is the species to species jump you must believe in as a true believer to buy into Darwin's evolution: hook line and sinker.

That is the weakness with your silly clownish whale chit. Each claimed "intermediate" link or "stage" :eek: is actually a fully developed, (many times unrelated), miss-classified species where a true believer Palentologist is tryin' ta proove (their and your), religion and get some more grants from other true believers. That is why they don't agree and change their positions when additional bones are discovered. Most of these "stages" :eek: are constructed out of a fossil bone or two. Again: that is why there is such disagreement that exists within yer religion.

The DNA connection between species that Noir's videos cited as "irrefutable proof" of your religion is in fact interesting and may hint at some previously unknown mechanism within developed complex life used by the designer that we clearly don't yet understand.

It is NOT IRREFUTABLE PROOF of Darwin's failed theory of evolution, where irreducible complexity rules out one at a time random mutations over time mechanism creating brand new complex species from very different predecessor species.


When I argued against ID, you changed your position to a total denial of evolutionary processes. Do you think that makes you look rational?

I have never totally denied the evolutionary process. What I have said is Darwin's theory is a failed one, (especially his failed one random mutation at a time mechanism), that doesn't mean an intelligent designer didn't use evolution for minor intra species modifications. Survival does seem ingrained in life by the designer.

Show me where I said that.


2. What kind of idiot "designer" would make a fish that can't breathe under water? Kinda like designing a boat that can't float IMO.

Ya still think a whale is a fish: clown????

I have a bridge fer sale ya may like ta buy, n' it floats!!!! You could maybe tow it out ta see some whales....... :laugh2::laugh2:

[Missileman]

Intra species evolution for survival seems to be a mechanism the designer used as a ingrained basic survival aspect of all observed life that was created, (as all observed life is far too complex to have suddenly appeared from a zap in a warm pond of ammino acids). A huge flaw in yer religion.

Bacteria seems to change (within a broad varation allowed) in that basic design of bacteria to survive various chemical assualts or other challenges in the environment. That said: a bacteria doesn't become a horse or fish :laugh2: or some such; it is still bacteria at the end of the day.

The huge challange for your religion of evolution, (which requires far more faith then ID), is the species to species jump you must believe in as a true believer to buy into Darwin's evolution: hook line and sinker.

That is the weakness with your silly clownish whale chit. Each claimed "intermediate" link or "stage" :eek: is actually a fully developed, (many times unrelated), miss-classified species where a true believer Palentologist is tryin' ta proove (their and your), religion and get some more grants from other true believers. That is why they don't agree and change their positions when additional bones are discovered. Most of these "stages" :eek: are constructed out of a fossil bone or two. Again: that is why there is such disagreement that exists within yer religion.

The DNA connection between species that Noir's videos cited as "irrefutable proof" of your religion is in fact interesting and may hint at some previously unknown mechanism within developed complex life used by the designer that we clearly don't yet understand.

It is NOT IRREFUTABLE PROOF of Darwin's failed theory of evolution, where irreducible complexity rules out one at a time random mutations over time mechanism creating brand new complex species from very different predecessor species.



I have never totally denied the evolutionary process. What I have said is Darwin's theory is a failed one, (especially his failed one random mutation at a time mechanism), that doesn't mean an intelligent designer didn't use evolution for minor intra species modifications. Survival does seem ingrained in life by the designer.

Show me where I said that.



Ya still think a whale is a fish: clown????

I have a bridge fer sale ya may like ta buy, n' it floats!!!! You could maybe tow it out ta see some whales....... :laugh2::laugh2:

Let me rephrase so you can't play a word game. What kind of "designer" would make a fully aquatic creature that can't breathe underwater? Surely a "designer" that could come up with that concept would have made a water breathing creature that's purely terrestrial.

[OldMercsRule]

Let me rephrase so you can't play a word game.

Had you made the "mistake" once, as I did and admitted my mistake with the term Achaeologist (where I meant Paleontologist) I'd give you a pass. That said ya called a whale a fish in post 169, where ya also claimed that whales came from seals. You have corntinued to call whales fish in subsequent posts, and I can't read yer mind butt the FULL BLOWN FISH statment got my attention and it is purdy clear prima facie that ya seem ta think whales actually are fish. :rolleyes: :laugh2:

You are now claiming I "play a word game" where that actually seems to be yer chosen style of debate and yer now usin' "projection" that Liberals I debate usually use.

Nior was debating the merrits of his and your religion and the engagement was on a intellectual level. He seems to have given up after his supposed trip to the library. You are just making up silly chit (50 million year old whales came from 15 million year old seals; whales just up and "decide" to live in the water; and now: whales are full blown fish), and bringing up the same silly chit over and over again. :rolleyes:

I can see where PMP is gettin' bored with yer whinny chit.

Why can't ya just admit ya lost the debate and appologize fer bein' a silly clown as ya already admitted evolution wasn't irrefutably proven? I can't take back yer clownish statements, as they are now out there fer all yer buds ta read. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:


What kind of "designer" would make a fully aquatic creature that can't breathe underwater?

I'm not a mind reader. Whales are very successful mammals, (not: full blown fish :laugh2: ), with unique features that defy the logic of one at a time random mutations over time that is the expressed mechanism of your religion. They are what they are. I don't generally argue with success or observations, I just point out the huge logical fallacy of evolution created by observation that just does not exist as a fault of ID theory.

The debate is over the stated issue that your Darwinian religion is irrefutably proven, which it clearly is not.


Surely a "designer" that could come up with that concept would have made a water breathing creature that's purely terrestrial.

Your the one who claims to know proper etiquette for God and dictate what is pollitically correct for the designer to design. Yer makin' another silly statement that is tangential and not worth debating, (at least for me).

[Missileman]

Had you made the "mistake" once, as I did and admitted my mistake with the term Achaeologist (where I meant Paleontologist) I'd give you a pass. That said ya called a whale a fish in post 169, where ya also claimed that whales came from seals. You have corntinued to call whales fish in subsequent posts, and I can't read yer mind butt the FULL BLOWN FISH statment got my attention and it is purdy clear prima facie that ya seem ta think whales actually are fish. :rolleyes: :laugh2:

You are now claiming I "play a word game" where that actually seems to be yer chosen style of debate and yer now usin' "projection" that Liberals I debate usually use.

Nior was debating the merrits of his and your religion and the engagement was on a intellectual level. He seems to have given up after his supposed trip to the library. You are just making up silly chit (50 million year old whales came from 15 million year old seals; whales just up and "decide" to live in the water; and now: whales are full blown fish), and bringing up the same silly chit over and over again. :rolleyes:

I can see where PMP is gettin' bored with yer whinny chit.

Why can't ya just admit ya lost the debate and appologize fer bein' a silly clown as ya already admitted evolution wasn't irrefutably proven? I can't take back yer clownish statements, as they are now out there fer all yer buds ta read. :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:



I'm not a mind reader. Whales are very successful mammals, (not: full blown fish :laugh2: ), with unique features that defy the logic of one at a time random mutations over time that is the expressed mechanism of your religion. They are what they are. I don't generally argue with success or observations, I just point out the huge logical fallacy of evolution created by observation that just does not exist as a fault of ID theory.

The debate is over the stated issue that your Darwinian religion is irrefutably proven, which it clearly is not.



Your the one who claims to know proper etiquette for God and dictate what is pollitically correct for the designer to design. Yer makin' another silly statement that is tangential and not worth debating, (at least for me).

IOW, when presented with an argument of logic rather than evidentiary, as you asked for, you run for the hills. Color me unsuprised. You're obviously too fucking stupid to waste any more of my time on. Cya in the funny papers.

[OldMercsRule]

IOW, when presented with an argument of logic rather than evidentiary, as you asked for, you run for the hills.

Yer claimin' that I asked for an argument of logic? Hmmmmmmm......I'd say the evidence doesen't fit yer religion so ya try to debate clownish statements that whales came from seals and turned into full blown fish. :rolleyes: :laugh2::laugh2:


Color me unsuprised. You're obviously too fucking stupid to waste any more of my time on. Cya in the funny papers.

You sure like to call names when ya get yer arse handed to ya in debate, eh? PMP is right: ya get real huffy when ya get spanked. :rolleyes: :laugh2::laugh2:

[Noir]

@comments that I have "given up" I certainly have not, however I have been working since Tuesday and will be working each day until atleast this coming thursday, meaning I am not able to get to the library.

[OldMercsRule]

@comments that I have "given up" I certainly have not, however I have been working since Tuesday and will be working each day until atleast this coming thursday, meaning I am not able to get to the library.

OK Noir. I will look forward to yer post when ya get some time.

[pete311]

Forgive me as I am just now joining this debate.


Intra species evolution for survival seems to be a mechanism the designer used as a ingrained basic survival aspect of all observed life that was created, (as all observed life is far too complex to have suddenly appeared from a zap in a warm pond of ammino acids). A huge flaw in yer religion.

First off evolution is not a religion. There is no evolution church or gods. Evolution started as a theory following the scientific model. All observed life is not too complex to have evolved over millions of years. Just because you don't understand the science, doesn't mean it's wrong.



Bacteria seems to change (within a broad varation allowed) in that basic design of bacteria to survive various chemical assualts or other challenges in the environment. That said: a bacteria doesn't become a horse or fish :laugh2: or some such; it is still bacteria at the end of the day.


The science of evolution would certainly agree that bacteria won't turn into a horse at the end of the day.



The huge challange for your religion of evolution, (which requires far more faith then ID), is the species to species jump you must believe in as a true believer to buy into Darwin's evolution: hook line and sinker.
We have very good explanations using evolution. All you can do is point at the sky. What do you mean by species to species jump? Do you mean say a bird into a reptile? If so, then you again simply have not done your research. These questions have all been explained if you bothered to read any science books.



That is the weakness with your silly clownish whale chit. Each claimed "intermediate" link or "stage" :eek: is actually a fully developed, (many times unrelated), miss-classified species where a true believer Palentologist is tryin' ta proove (their and your), religion and get some more grants from other true believers. That is why they don't agree and change their positions when additional bones are discovered. Most of these "stages" :eek: are constructed out of a fossil bone or two. Again: that is why there is such disagreement that exists within yer religion.

Much of this rant is simply garbage. Do you even pre read what you are typing? The notion of something "fully developed" is vague at best". Nearly all credible scientists are in agreement of evolution. These are people who have studied their field for decades. What have you done? Have you even taken a biology course?



The DNA connection between species that Noir's videos cited as "irrefutable proof" of your religion is in fact interesting and may hint at some previously unknown mechanism within developed complex life used by the designer that we clearly don't yet understand.

It is impossible to debate with someone living in a fantasy land.



It is NOT IRREFUTABLE PROOF of Darwin's failed theory of evolution, where irreducible complexity rules out one at a time random mutations over time mechanism creating brand new complex species from very different predecessor species.


The argument of irreducible complexity is one that was extinguished many years ago. It simply doesn't hold any longer, get with the times.



I have never totally denied the evolutionary process. What I have said is Darwin's theory is a failed one, (especially his failed one random mutation at a time mechanism), that doesn't mean an intelligent designer didn't use evolution for minor intra species modifications. Survival does seem ingrained in life by the designer.


Darwin theory certainly did have a lot wrong, good thing credible scientists haven't used HIS theory for decades. Since his time the theory has gone through many many revisions. The modern evolution theory is pretty solid and among credible scientists it's not even a question anymore. Only those uneducated people on the fringe argue in the shadows.

[OldMercsRule]

Forgive me as I am just now joining this debate.

Debate away.


First off evolution is not a religion. There is no evolution church or gods. Evolution started as a theory following the scientific model.

Nope the Greeks, Persians, and Chinese made an observational based theory as did contemporaries with inteligent design.
Darwin tried to modify it and created a religion of true believers.


All observed life is not too complex to have evolved over millions of years. Just because you don't understand the science, doesn't mean it's wrong.

OK Einsien, (who also believed ID was the best theory to explain what his scientific theories showed), explain the cellular mechanisms within a single cell and how it could have cum from a warm pond. I can't wait.


The science of evolution would certainly agree that bacteria won't turn into a horse at the end of the day.

Then explain how one complete species turns into another.


We have very good explanations using evolution.

Explainations that take much more faith then believing in ID......


All you can do is point at the sky.

Lots of theories cum from looking at the sky.


What do you mean by species to species jump?

How does one successful complete organism become another with very different complex organs and systems that have individual complex components that can't possibly work unless all components function together?


Do you mean say a bird into a reptile?

Dinosaur into bird, bacteria into horse, monkey into man, yada..... yada....


If so, then you again simply have not done your research.

Enlighten me Mr New York Times who knows so much more then all the world's media and luvs the religion o' peace. :rolleyes:


These questions have all been explained if you bothered to read any science books.

Oh............. How so????? BTW while yer at it 'splain where life came from and how the big bang came about....... :rolleyes:



Much of this rant is simply garbage. Do you even pre read what you are typing? The notion of something "fully developed" is vague at best".

Fully functional with complex organs like eyes n' such and able to survive long periods of time on earth. Hows that?


Nearly all credible scientists are in agreement of evolution.

Now there is yer religion. Maybe there is grant money involved eh?


These are people who have studied their field for decades. What have you done? Have you even taken a biology course?

Sure, what does that have to do with the price of beans in Boston?


It is impossible to debate with someone living in a fantasy land.

Yup hard to debate with someone who thinks they are the New York Times as well.


The argument of irreducible complexity is one that was extinguished many years ago. It simply doesn't hold any longer, get with the times.

Oh then it should be easy for a poster who is superior to the media to extinguish it since it has already been done. Let's see your argument. Einstein will be real impressed.


Darwin theory certainly did have a lot wrong, good thing credible scientists haven't used HIS theory for decades.

Educate a feller with only one functional brain cell where is Darwin wrong eh?


Since his time the theory has gone through many many revisions.

OH...... No longer the one mutation at a time over time...... ("natural selection") do share yer superior insights with us peons.......


The modern evolution theory is pretty solid and among credible scientists it's not even a question anymore.

Yup it is now a full blown religion. Where did life cum from eh? :rolleyes:


Only those uneducated people on the fringe argue in the shadows.

Only sooo much one can learn with only one functional brain cell. Why don't ya get off yer high horse, quit looking down yer long nose and present your unified theory to us pedestrians that is "not even a question anymore" :rolleyes:

[pete311]

OMR I'm sorry, I don't have 16 years to teach you basic biology, astrophysics, paleontology, and anthropology. Nor would I wish to for someone who makes up their own definitions. There is a reason you are stuck debating on a hole of an internet forum while real scientists are making incredible advances in science and technology. They aren't doing that rolling dice man, they know what is going on.

[PostmodernProphet]

pete, you came to this debate too late.....you're arguments are looking at bit amateur at this point....

[PostmodernProphet]

The argument of irreducible complexity is one that was extinguished many years ago. It simply doesn't hold any longer, get with the times.
if you are predisposed to believing in evolution one can find a comfort zone to live with irreducible complexity.....if one remains aloof and requires scientific evidence, one cannot.....

I have have always wondered if I would ever find an evolutionist who could explain the butterflies' existence....is it a development from a crawling creature trending toward a more survivable flying creature or a flying creature trending toward a more survivable crawling creature.....and why is it stuck with being both.....

[OldMercsRule]

OMR I'm sorry, I don't have 16 years to teach you basic biology, astrophysics, paleontology, and anthropology. Nor would I wish to for someone who makes up their own definitions. There is a reason you are stuck debating on a hole of an internet forum while real scientists are making incredible advances in science and technology. They aren't doing that rolling dice man, they know what is going on.

Translation: I'm not up to the challange to back up the stuff that rolls off the ol' keyboard as I'm way over my head so I will pretend I'm smarter then everyone and quietly give up. :p :dunno::rolleyes:


burp.......pffffffffffft :D

[pete311]

I have have always wondered if I would ever find an evolutionist who could explain the butterflies' existence....is it a development from a crawling creature trending toward a more survivable flying creature or a flying creature trending toward a more survivable crawling creature.....and why is it stuck with being both.....
You are not trying very hard. You will likely find educated answers if you simply visit your nearest research university and ask to talk with a biology professor. It would be better even still if you could find one that specializes in butterflies or more likely just insects.


Translation: I'm not up to the challange to back up the stuff that rolls off the ol' keyboard as I'm way over my head so I will pretend I'm smarter then everyone and quietly give up.

You're right. When you ask broad questions that require years to build up and explain I don't have time for that. The answers are there, just open a college text book.

[PostmodernProphet]

You are not trying very hard. You will likely find educated answers if you simply visit your nearest research university and ask to talk with a biology professor. It would be better even still if you could find one that specializes in butterflies or more likely just insects.



You're right. When you ask broad questions that require years to build up and explain I don't have time for that. The answers are there, just open a college text book.

dude.....you have no business posting in this thread.......you entire argument is "there are other people smarter than you are....I don't know who they are and I don't know what they would say, but I bet they would win this debate if they were here"......

[pete311]

dude.....you have no business posting in this thread.......you entire argument is "there are other people smarter than you are....I don't know who they are and I don't know what they would say, but I bet they would win this debate if they were here"......

You're right, I'm out, enjoy getting your answers off a shady internet message board.

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Translation: I'm not up to the challange to back up the stuff that rolls off the ol' keyboard as I'm way over my head so I will pretend I'm smarter then everyone and quietly give up.


You're right.

Thanks for the candid admission of what I already knew. OF COURSE I'M RIGHT.

You stuck that long arrogant 'smarter then everybody else' nose of yers into a settled debate where the faithful Darwinian Evolutionists of your particular religion with profoundly closed minds, (as yours obviously is) had already been soundly thumped.


When you ask broad questions that require years to build up and explain I don't have time for that.

Hey you stuck yer long snarky arrogant nose in here in made unsupportable statements that are patently false. Here are a few that I directly challanged.



Originally Posted by pete311
First off evolution is not a religion. There is no evolution church or gods. Evolution started as a theory following the scientific model.



Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Nope the Greeks, Persians, and Chinese made an observational based theory as did contemporaries with inteligent design.
Darwin tried to modify it and created a religion of true believers.

Your sooooooo full of arrogance and your own religion you can't see that it actually is a religion of true believers like you. :laugh2:

It takes far more faith to believe in your religion based upon a failed observational based theory that doesn't fit observations in modern science, (irreducable complexity of even so called "simple" single celled life, complex organs in all organisms with many components that must function in concert to work at all), and inter species jump from a complex complete successful organism to another complete new species, (based soley on unsettled observations that are frequently changed). Only true believers would accept that crap.

You have to be profoundly faithfull to overlook those fundamental flaws in the theory that is the basis of your religion. :laugh2:



Originally Posted by pete311
These questions have all been explained if you bothered to read any science books.



Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Oh............. How so????? BTW while yer at it 'splain where life came from and how the big bang came about.......

If you had just a fraction of the intelligence you think you have or an open mind you would recognise that the failed "natural selection" one random mutation at a time over time mechanism of your religion has failed to fit observations due to the tremendous complexity of all life, no evidence of non-functional 'missing links' between devoloped species, and the Cambrian explosion of complex viable species in a relatively short time.

If the profound hurdles have been solved as you arrogantly and falsely claim nobody else knows about them. Snark...... snark :laugh2:

Then the mother of all failures of your religion: WHERE DID LIFE COME FROM?



The answers are there, just open a college text book.

These "answers" aren't there: clown, and if ya had a clue of what yer talking about you would know that. :laugh2:

Let's review your unsupported BULL CHIT claims, shall we?



Originally Posted by pete311
The argument of irreducible complexity is one that was extinguished many years ago. It simply doesn't hold any longer, get with the times.


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Oh then it should be easy for a poster who is superior to the media to extinguish it since it has already been done. Let's see your argument. Einstein will be real impressed.



Originally Posted by pete311
Darwin theory certainly did have a lot wrong, good thing credible scientists haven't used HIS theory for decades.


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Educate a feller with only one functional brain cell where is Darwin wrong eh?



Originally Posted by pete311
Since his time the theory has gone through many many revisions.


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
OH...... No longer the one mutation at a time over time...... ("natural selection") do share yer superior insights with us peons.......



Originally Posted by pete311
The modern evolution theory is pretty solid and among credible scientists it's not even a question anymore.


Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Yup it is now a full blown religion. Where did life cum from eh?



Originally Posted by pete311
There is a reason you are stuck debating on a hole of an internet forum while real scientists are making incredible advances in science and technology.

Why even come here: clown?

You are the one who stuck yer nose into a settled debate.

Just to display your ignorance and profound arrogance????? What a joke you are..... :laugh2::laugh2:

[pete311]

These videos may not answer your exact specific questions but they do effectively dispute most common creationist statements. I hope you actually spend time in watching them rather than just replying with a predictable snide remark back at me.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D&annotation_id=annotation_794017&feature=iv

[PostmodernProphet]

/sigh....why do atheists always want us to debate their videos.....I miss the good old days when they actually went to the trouble of cutting and pasting arguments from atheistRus websites.....if you're not willing to take the time to type out your argument, I'm certainly not going to take the time to play with you.....

[OldMercsRule]

These videos may not answer your exact specific questions

Nope they sure don't fit this settled debate at all. I only watched a few minutes of the first one, and I see why a lazy arrogant poster that has already admitted he is in way over his head would want to waste time on the silly worthless chit in those tapes.


but they do effectively dispute most common creationist statements.

They aren't effective to someone who has at least one functional brain cell.


I hope you actually spend time in watching them

You can hope others waste time all ya want.:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:


rather than just replying with a predictable snide remark back at me.

You deserve the criticizm for your lazy arrogant "I'm smarter then you" bull chit style of drive by shallow posting about a subject that you either know nothing about or lack the ability to articulate your positions in yer own words.

When you can't back up your silly statements ya serf the net and find snarky chit on tape that appeals to yer shallow look down yer nose perspective, butt in no way irrefutably proves Darwin's evolution, which is the subject of the debate you are trying to derail.:laugh2::laugh2:



Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet
/sigh....why do atheists always want us to debate their videos.....I miss the good old days when they actually went to the trouble of cutting and pasting arguments from atheistRus websites.....if you're not willing to take the time to type out your argument, I'm certainly not going to take the time to play with you.....

Well said PmP.

[pete311]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Evolution has been observed in

Peppered Moth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Fruit Fly
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2010-04-08-spots08_ST_N.htm

Microorganisms
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Virus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_virus

Dogs
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html



irreducable complexity of even so called "simple" single celled life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity


inter species jump from a complex complete successful organism to another complete new species
Do you mean a cat giving birth to a duck? of course that is absurd. but new dog breeds happen all the time and you have mules. In the wild you also have coydogs and colves. Horse and donkey are two different species that give birth to a new species.


complex organs in all organisms with many components that must function in concert to work at all
most organisms don't have organs. but...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html

Cambrian explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Possible_causes_of_the_.E2.80.9 Cexplosion.E2.80.9D


evidence of non-functional 'missing links' between developed species
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html

[OldMercsRule]

Quote:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Polically correct semantics. Both theories are very old and observational based. One: Darwin's theroy of Evolution doesn't fit observations, (dated by the period or modern), and one does. GUESS WHICH ONE? :D :D



Evolution has been observed in

Peppered Moth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

Fruit Fly
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/genetics/2010-04-08-spots08_ST_N.htm

Microorganisms
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Virus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_virus

Dogs
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html

I have not denied the possibiltiy of evolution (even as an admittedly flawed theory), that most take as an article of faith. I have stated that the intra species evolution we do see, (which I admit the above examples do show) could be the Intelligent Designer's allowed range of occurrences within organisms.

That theory, (ID), that does actually fit all of Mankind's observations from the big bang forward has not been disproven and you have not disproven it here either, although you have finally made a legitimate attempt at real thought provoking debate: GOOD SHOW! :D

What I have stated and still maintain in this particular debate on this thread is that Darwin's evolution is not irrefutably proven. That is the primary issue for me and has been in every post.

The virus doesn't become a dog and the dog doesn't become a fruit fly or the fruit fly a peppered moth. These shifts (man made in the case of dogs), maybe the allowed range for survival allowed by the Designer who also seems to have created life, (none of which is simple).

It takes much more faith to believe in Darwin's evolution one at a time random mutations over time then to accept the possibility of ID based on what we actually observe. That said: the bias everywhere is obvious, as we are all taught the Darwinian religion, and wiki is populated by true believers.



irreducable complexity of even so called "simple" single celled life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

I'm not gonna debate wiki, (as I don't debate videos either. Single cell life (on up) is far tooooooo complex to account for original life or the very complex very developed life that has been on Earth since the Cambrian period. The list of cites below is provided for example of well thought out logic that deals with this huge flaw in Darwin's mechansim for evolution, (Darwin's theory is still observational and has not been proven and doesn't fit observations).

Some of these cites have ID faith based sections which may offend true believers of Dawinism. So be it, (as wiki is poluted with true believers of evolution), some who receive true believer corntrolled grant money. :rolleyes:

Evolution is fatally flawed as an observation based theroy: prima facie. Only the religion keeps it alive and rarely challenged.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/irreducible-complexity.htm

In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists. We now have a debate within the scientific community itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction. 1

...In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail -- no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process. 2

...after all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end -- no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers... if in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back. 3

…every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong. 4

...The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science. 5

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840

Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution-the issue that could completely disprove his idea. So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding "yes."

http://www.gotquestions.org/irreducible-complexity.html

In summary, irreducible complexity is an aspect of the Intelligent Design Theory that argues some biological systems are so complex, and so dependent upon multiple complex parts, that they could not have evolved by chance. Unless all the parts of a system all evolved at the same time, the system would be useless, and therefore would actually be a detriment to the organism, and therefore according to the "laws" of evolution, would be naturally selected out of the organism. While irreducible complexity does not explicitly prove an intelligent Designer, and does not conclusively disprove evolution, it most definitely points to something outside of random processes in the origin and development of biological life.

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm

Conclusion
It is often said that science must avoid any conclusions which smack of the supernatural. But this seems to me to be both bad logic and bad science. Science is not a game in which arbitrary rules are used to decide what explanations are to be permitted. Rather, it is an effort to make true statements about physical reality. It was only about sixty years ago that the expansion of the universe was first observed. This fact immediately suggested a singular event--that at some time in the distant past the universe began expanding from an extremely small size. To many people this inference was loaded with overtones of a supernatural event--the creation, the beginning of the universe. The prominent physicist A.S. Eddington probably spoke for many physicists in voicing his disgust with such a notion 8:

Philosophically, the notion of an abrupt beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant to me, as I think it must be to most; and even those who would welcome a proof of the intervention of a Creator will probably consider that a single windingup at some remote epoch is not really the kind of relation between God and his world that brings satisfaction to the mind.

Nonetheless, the Big Bang hypothesis was embraced by physics and over the years has proven to be a very fruitful paradigm. The point here is that physics followed the data where it seemed to lead, even though some thought the model gave aid and comfort to religion. In the present day, as biochemistry multiplies examples of fantastically complex molecular systems, systems which discourage even an attempt to explain how they may have arisen, we should take a lesson from physics. The conclusion of design flows naturally from the data; we should not shrink from it; we should embrace it and build on it.

In concluding, it is important to realize that we are not inferring design from what we do not know, but from what we do know. We are not inferring design to account for a black box, but to account for an open box. A man from a primitive culture who sees an automobile might guess that it was powered by the wind or by an antelope hidden under the car, but when he opens up the hood and sees the engine he immediately realizes that it was designed. In the same way biochemistry has opened up the cell to examine what makes it run and we see that it, too, was designed.

It was a shock to people of the nineteenth century when they discovered, from observations science had made, that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. It is a shock to us in the twentieth century to discover, from observations science has made, that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection, and therefore were designed. But we must deal with our shock as best we can and go on. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead, but the work of science continues.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html



inter species jump from a complex complete successful organism to another complete new species


Do you mean a cat giving birth to a duck? of course that is absurd.

Good show then, we may agree after all, (if you realize what just rolled off yer keyboard). One complete and competitive existing species does not directly lead to another, (as true believers routinely claim from the fossil record!!!!!)


but new dog breeds happen all the time and you have mules. In the wild you also have coydogs and colves. Horse and donkey are two different species that give birth to a new species.

Nope both horse and donkey: Equidae or in the case of dogs/coyote/wolves: Canis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_Wolf


most organisms don't have organs. but...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html

See above cites. ^^^^^


Cambrian explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Possible_causes_of_the_.E2.80.9 Cexplosion.E2.80.9D

"Possible causes" of observations within the fossil record that don't fit a failed observational based theory offers proof of the FACT that: DARWIN'S EVOLUTION IS CLEARLY NOT IRREFUTABLY PROVEN!!!!

http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

Conclusion

An experience-based analysis of the causal powers of various explanatory hypotheses suggests purposive or intelligent design as a causally adequate--and perhaps the most causally adequate--explanation for the origin of the complex specified information required to build the Cambrian animals and the novel forms they represent. For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa.

http://www.conservativedvds.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c7409

Today, after more than 150 years of exploration, fossil evidence of slow, incremental biological change has yet to be excavated. Instead, we find a picture of the rapid appearance of fully developed, complex organisms during the outset of the Cambrian geological era. Early in the Cambrian period compound eyes, articulated limbs, sophisticated sensory organs, and skeletons burst into existence seemingly out of nowhere. This remarkable explosion of life is best explained by the existence of a transcendent intelligence. Darwin's Dilemma explores the Cambrian explosion and the scientific controversy that stills surrounds it. Where are the missing transitional forms that Darwin’s theory requires? Can any undirected evolutionary process explain the origins of animals?

Filmed on four continents, this fascinating documentary examines some of the most important fossil discoveries ever made… and, with them, a mystery deeper than Darwin ever imagined. For the Cambrian explosion was actually an explosion of biological information: assembly instructions in DNA and embryonic blueprints that directed the development of the first complex organisms that embody almost all the major animal body plans that exist today. Darwin's Dilemma delivers information that points unmistakably to foresight, purpose, and intelligent design.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html

A snippet of this article belies this true believer headline.

It should have said "ANOTHER FIND IN THE FOSSIL RECORD MAY BE THE HOLY GRAIL OF THE MISSING LINK.... (NOT). The fossil was a fully developed organism. NO SPECIES TO SPECIES JUMP HAS EVER BEEN DOCUMENTED. PERIOD.

See this snippet (below).

"The new discovery could help to rewrite the history of human evolution by filling in crucial gaps in the scientific knowledge." Some irrefutably proven theory that needs to be rewitten eh? :eek:

[Missileman]

It should have said "ANOTHER FIND IN THE FOSSIL RECORD MAY BE THE HOLY GRAIL OF THE MISSING LINK.... (NOT). The fossil was a fully developed organism. NO SPECIES TO SPECIES JUMP HAS EVER BEEN DOCUMENTED. PERIOD.

:

Are you STILL posting your retarded thought processes here? Who in the hell ever said that evolution claims that one species ever gave birth to a creature of a totally different species...of course the intermediates were complete organisms. The changes between species occurred in stages over a long period of time, not in a single leap. Do yourself a favor and read up on evolution before you try to argue further that it's something other than what it is.

You keep bringing up the eye...is it your argument that the eye is so complex that it can't have occurred by one type of cell transforming into another?

[pete311]

Polically correct semantics. Both theories are very old and observational based. One: Darwin's theroy of Evolution doesn't fit observations, (dated by the period or modern), and one does. GUESS WHICH ONE?

"Biologists no longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated."

"We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why this point may not be appreciated by the average non-scientist because natural selection is easy to understand at a superficial level. It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient. "

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html


What I have stated and still maintain in this particular debate on this thread is that Darwin's evolution is not irrefutably proven.

As I showed above, neither I nor scientists believe this either. Can we stop this debate now? ;)


The virus doesn't become a dog and the dog doesn't become a fruit fly or the fruit fly a peppered moth.

Anything won't turn into just anything. It's not a magic show. Evolution Theory doesn't support this idea either.


It takes much more faith to believe in Darwin's evolution one at a time random mutations over time then to accept the possibility of ID based on what we actually observe.
Having a scientific model is more difficult to believe in than reading a 2000 year old poetry book?


then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back

Again we've modernized since Darwin. Holding us back? Really!? You tell me modern science which follows evolution, has held back technology and medicine! You don't get brain implants, antibiotics, space shuttles, microprocessors, DNA profiling, MRI machines... by rolling dice or were those manuals in the bible?


…every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong.

Again we've modernized since Darwin. Evolution is fact. It is observed in labs every day.


Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems.
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html


Good show then, we may agree after all, (if you realize what just rolled off yer keyboard). One complete and competitive existing species does not directly lead to another, (as true believers routinely claim from the fossil record!!!!!)

Evolution does not make this claim. A cat over time, given the right pressures, environment and mutations can develop into a new species. Something like this?
http://www.itsnature.org/wp-content/gallery/platypus-and-echidna/platypus.jpeg


Nope both horse and donkey: Equidae or in the case of dogs/coyote/wolves: Canis.

Those are Genus, not Species. Each Genus is comprised of Species. Canis is Genus, Lupus is Species. Homo is Genus, Sapian is species.


DARWIN'S EVOLUTION IS CLEARLY NOT IRREFUTABLY PROVEN!!!!

For the last time, no one strictly follows Darwins old theory.


Today, after more than 150 years of exploration, fossil evidence of slow, incremental biological change has yet to be excavated. Instead, we find a picture of the rapid appearance of fully developed, complex organisms during the outset of the Cambrian geological era.
http://www.skepdic.com/cambrian.html


NO SPECIES TO SPECIES JUMP HAS EVER BEEN DOCUMENTED
Do you mean Genus to Genus?

While the event itself may not be able to be sensed by a single human, evidence of that event can. This is no different than anything that occurred at least a few hundred years ago. No one alive today witnessed the Battle of the Teutonburg Forest, but there is plenty of evidence supporting it, and you'd have a hard time arguing it didn't occur just because you didn't see it.

[OldMercsRule]

Are you STILL posting your retarded thought processes here?

Are you still breathing? :D


Who in the hell ever said that evolution claims that one species ever gave birth to a creature of a totally different species...of course the intermediates were complete organisms.

That is what true believers think: organizims gave "birth" via a one random mutation at a time over time process that doesn't make any sense at all if yer brain werks. Does yer brain werk?

BTW: the true belivers are always changing which supposed complete successful species from the past turned into another species as they discover things, (see Pete's article about the missing link fossil fer a real good laugh). Gotta drink lots of kool aid or smoke some real strong whacky tobaceeeee ta believe that chit eh: Missile? ;)


The changes between species occurred in stages over a long period of time, not in a single leap.

Got some of that smoke? Must be very strong. Would it hurt me single brain cell if I tried some? :D


Do yourself a favor and read up on evolution before you try to argue further that it's something other than what it is.

It is what it is Missile, A RELIGION FULL OF TRUE BELIEVERS. ;)


You keep bringing up the eye...is it your argument that the eye is so complex that it can't have occurred by one type of cell transforming into another?

Do you have any idea how complex a living "cell" is: Einstein??? Prolly not or ya wouldn't say the silly chit ya say. Hit the books. :lol:

[OldMercsRule]

"Biologists no longer question whether evolution has occurred or is occurring. However, the MECHANISM of evolution is still debated."

"We have learned much since Darwin's time and it is no longer appropriate to claim that evolutionary biologists believe that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is the best theory of the mechanism of evolution. I can understand why this point may not be appreciated by the average non-scientist because natural selection is easy to understand at a superficial level. It has been widely promoted in the popular press and the image of "survival of the fittest" is too powerful and too convenient. "

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

Sounds like failed theory in a state of flux ta me. I guess Noir and Missile are gonna debate you now. What a bunch of upside down true believers. "Irrutable Proof" my arse!!!!!! :rolleyes::D:D



What I have stated and still maintain in this particular debate on this thread is that Darwin's evolution is not irrefutably proven.


As I showed above, neither I nor scientists believe this either. Can we stop this debate now? ;)


Maybe between you and I after that corncession ^^^, (if it lasts), butt: there are still some true believers Missile was just chirpin' about natural selection one mutation at a time over time. (Kinda stuck on stooooooooopid or some such.) :D



The virus doesn't become a dog and the dog doesn't become a fruit fly or the fruit fly a peppered moth.


Anything won't turn into just anything. It's not a magic show. Evolution Theory doesn't support this idea either.

It is a magic show to most true believers.


It takes much more faith to believe in Darwin's evolution one at a time random mutations over time then to accept the possibility of ID based on what we actually observe.


Having a scientific model is more difficult to believe in than reading a 2000 year old poetry book?

An Intelligent Design fits all observations and always has versus yer goofy morphing evolution theory. It takes much more faith and imagination ta dream up shifting mechanisms fer the "magic show" you and the other believers have faith in. It is not "a scientific model" it is a religion.


then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back


Again we've modernized since Darwin. Holding us back? Really!? You tell me modern science which follows evolution, has held back technology and medicine! You don't get brain implants, antibiotics, space shuttles, microprocessors, DNA profiling, MRI machines... by rolling dice or were those manuals in the bible?

The debate is not about the bible. It is about the claim that evolution is irrefutably proven.


…every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong.


Again we've modernized since Darwin.

You can see that Darwin failed most do not.


…every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary and it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong



Evolution is fact. It is observed in labs every day.

Nope it is an observational theory in a state of flux no where near a "fact". Yer showin' yer true believer colors again.


Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems.

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html


Good show then, we may agree after all, (if you realize what just rolled off yer keyboard). One complete and competitive existing species does not directly lead to another, (as true believers routinely claim from the fossil record!!!!!)


Evolution does not make this claim. A cat over time, given the right pressures, environment and mutations can develop into a new species. Something like this?
http://www.itsnature.org/wp-content/gallery/platypus-and-echidna/platypus.jpeg

Unproven theory.


Nope both horse and donkey: Equidae or in the case of dogs/coyote/wolves: Canis.


Those are Genus, not Species. Each Genus is comprised of Species. Canis is Genus, Lupus is Species. Homo is Genus, Sapian is species.

Burp


DARWIN'S EVOLUTION IS CLEARLY NOT IRREFUTABLY PROVEN!!!!


For the last time, no one strictly follows Darwins old theory.

That maybe for some (not the majority of kool aid drinkers), yer still one of the faithful. Hope you can see that. I don't deny my faith.


Today, after more than 150 years of exploration, fossil evidence of slow, incremental biological change has yet to be excavated. Instead, we find a picture of the rapid appearance of fully developed, complex organisms during the outset of the Cambrian geological era.


http://www.skepdic.com/cambrian.html


NO SPECIES TO SPECIES JUMP HAS EVER BEEN DOCUMENTED


Do you mean Genus to Genus?

While the event itself may not be able to be sensed by a single human, evidence of that event can. This is no different than anything that occurred at least a few hundred years ago. No one alive today witnessed the Battle of the Teutonburg Forest, but there is plenty of evidence supporting it, and you'd have a hard time arguing it didn't occur just because you didn't see it

No complex organism to organism jump has ever been shown to happen. The shifts we see are intra species within a range the intelligent designer provided for.

[PostmodernProphet]

somehow a true believer thinks that by observing a red spotted warbler evolve into a two red spotted warbler they have "irrefutably proven" that an ancient, randomly generated, single-celled creature "evolved" into both human beings and sequoia trees.....it isn't that the religious don't understand science.....it's that the seculars don't understand their own faith......interesting side note there.....did it take the sequoia's ancestors longer to migrate than it did the humans?......let's assume, for the sake of argument that the Ultimate Life Ancestor crawled out its pool of primordial sludge somewhere in Africa......since it's descendants wouldn't have been able to evolve into seed carrying creatures like birds until much later than it's other descendants evolved into creatures like trees, I wonder how far those early Tree Ancestors were able to spread.....

[pete311]

it isn't that the religious don't understand science.

No that is exactly what it is. You have shown you have no understanding of modern evolution or basic biology. I am done here, thanks for the time.

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet
it isn't that the religious don't understand science.


No that is exactly what it is. You have shown you have no understanding of modern evolution or basic biology.

Yer fallin' off the ol' wagon again Pete.

Ya sound just like an Islamo apologist that claims non Muslim's who don't speak arabic can't understand the sixth century violent world domination mindset they have that flows from the Quran. That is horse poop.

PmP seems like a real smart feller, (or at least a real effective fart smeller) :D

His observations on this thread are spot on.

Both he and I are true believers in our faith. We admit that, why can't you?

I likely could debate some of the details of our shared faith with him as I do conditionally accept some findings of mankind's science that earth is likely 4.5 Billion years old, and some aspects of evolution are likely as well, and some Christians do not. That minor detail does not stop me from bein' a true believer.

Why do you think yer sooooooooo much smarter then we are????

Guess you could say I'm a "cafeteria Christian", as some of my devout Christian friends call me.

I am unshakable in my faith in Jeses Christ = God big G regardless of how it looks silly to look down their nose Godless Liberals, no matter what science shows now or in the future.

I'm a true believer beyond any secular persuasion, and I admit that "fact". Why can't you see the log in yer eye when makin' fun of the specks in PmP's eyes?

Clearly Noir, Missile and you are true belivers in the other very old observational theory based religion whether you can look in the mirror and admit it or not.

At least you broke ranks with the other two believers and admitted the state of flux in yer religion.

Irrefutably proven me arse!!!!



I am done here, thanks for the time.

Well now yer gettin' huffy again. :D

At least ya went for a few thoughtful posts before ya blew up.

I don't blame ya since you are on the wrong end of a debate that was lost before ya joined it.

[PostmodernProphet]

No that is exactly what it is. You have shown you have no understanding of modern evolution or basic biology. I am done here, thanks for the time.

I beg your pardon?.....I'm quite certain my knowledge of both exceeds yours....at least I'm not reduced to posting irrelevant videos to make my points....

[PostmodernProphet]

another question that puzzles me.....the original Bird Ancestor....so, we begin with a runny/crawly type creature that develops vestigial wings as a mutation.....change is gradual, not sudden, right?.....so it would have had to have been many generations before such a creature could actually fly.......why did it survive long enough to establish itself as a new flying creature?.....since at the inception of the mutation it didn't "need" wings to be the surviving strongest why would the mutation carry forward?.....

[PostmodernProphet]

perhaps since Pete, who apparently is more informed about evolution than I am, has left, perhaps one of our other seculars would be so kind as to answer that, the question about migrating trees and the persistently unanswered question about butterfly evolution......

[PostmodernProphet]

another thought..do pure evolutionists believe that life originally began in one location or did we have an eruption of life in multiple locations around the world simultaneously.....a simultaneous spontaneity?......is there a Garden of Edenic Primordial Sludge?......

[Missileman]

[COLOR="blue"]That is what true believers think: organizims gave "birth" via a one random mutation at a time over time process that doesn't make any sense at all if yer brain werks.

Until you have a reasonabble understanding of the theory, you aren't in any position to make an argument of your own, let alone attempt to declare what mine is. I know it seems pretty easy to shoot down your fallacious version of my position, but why don't you tackle my version instead.






Do you have any idea how complex a living "cell" is: Einstein??? Prolly not or ya wouldn't say the silly chit ya say. Hit the books. :lol:

You didn't answer my question.

[pete311]

perhaps since Pete, who apparently is more informed about evolution than I am, has left, perhaps one of our other seculars would be so kind as to answer that, the question about migrating trees and the persistently unanswered question about butterfly evolution......

"Some researchers theorize that butterflies most likely originated in the Cretaceous when the continents were arrayed differently from their present positions and with climates unlike those of today. That is when the major angiosperm radiation took place."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_evolution

I have no information on migrating trees. But that fact is no matter.


another thought..do pure evolutionists believe that life originally began in one location or did we have an eruption of life in multiple locations around the world simultaneously.....a simultaneous spontaneity?......is there a Garden of Edenic Primordial Sludge?......

So the origin of life is still a bit of speculation. However that fact doesn't obstruct the fact that we know evolution is a fact. Organisms evolve, it is proven. We can observe it and study it's evidence. Origin of life we are still working on.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

[PostmodernProphet]

"Some researchers theorize that butterflies most likely originated in the Cretaceous when the continents were arrayed differently from their present positions and with climates unlike those of today. That is when the major angiosperm radiation took place."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_evolution


ah, but is the butterfly a crawling creature evolving into a flying creature or a flying creature evolving into a crawling creature.....and if it's odds of surviving are better by changing, why is it still both?....

[PostmodernProphet]

However that fact doesn't obstruct the fact that we know evolution is a fact. Organisms evolve, it is proven. We can observe it and study it's evidence. Origin of life we are still working on.

I will agree that yellow butterflies evolved from brown butterflies and that it's been proven. I will also agree that St. Bernards and Shitzus both evolved from wild dogs (probably within the last thousand years or so).......I will not agree that it's been proven, even remotely, that both humans and butterflies evolved from the first single celled creature that crawled out of primordial goo.....

[PostmodernProphet]

I have no information on migrating trees. But that fact is no matter.

I expect it's of great importance to trees.....is everything else you can't explain of "no matter" as well?

[PostmodernProphet]

You didn't answer my question.

back to irreducible complexity, Miss....can you speculate on how life came to be, when the DNA necessary to produce a cell capable of reproduction is more complex than could have developed in a single generation?......

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
That is what true believers think: organizims gave "birth" via a one random mutation at a time over time process that doesn't make any sense at all if yer brain werks.


Until you have a reasonabble understanding of the theory,

How would you know what I understand about the theory. Ya cant read me brain cell no matter how good a mind reader ya think ya are. ;)


you aren't in any position to make an argument of your own, let alone attempt to declare what mine is. I know it seems pretty easy to shoot down your fallacious version of my position, but why don't you tackle my version instead.

You do say some real silly chit Missile. :D



Who in the hell ever said that evolution claims that one species ever gave birth to a creature of a totally different species...of course the intermediates were complete organisms.

Paleontologists that are paid to be true believers routinely just make chit up when they find a fossil, and they frequently change their minds when new fossils show up at a later date. If so called "intermediates" are successful complete organisms why are they intermediates at all? As I have said it takes a lot of faith to cling to such a challenged observational based theory that doesn't fit observations.


You didn't answer my question.

Ya mean this one?


You keep bringing up the eye...is it your argument that the eye is so complex that it can't have occurred by one type of cell transforming into another?

Eyes in many complex organisms are very complex organs. A random mutation of an existing eye would most certianly cause blindness, and since many very different complex parts need to all function at the same time for focused eyesight a cell mutation just doesn't cut it: Missile.

Now that I answered yer question, does yer brain werk? :D :D :D

[OldMercsRule]

Pete ya keep saying "evolution is a fact". :laugh2:


It is a theory, and in yer and Missile's case a religion butt: certainly NOT A FACT!

[pete311]

ah, but is the butterfly a crawling creature evolving into a flying creature or a flying creature evolving into a crawling creature.....and if it's odds of surviving are better by changing, why is it still both?....
Caterpillars are simply butterfly larvae. Most insects have a larvae stage. They are not distinct species. Same species, different development stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis


I will agree that yellow butterflies evolved from brown butterflies and that it's been proven. I will also agree that St. Bernards and Shitzus both evolved from wild dogs (probably within the last thousand years or so).......I will not agree that it's been proven, even remotely, that both humans and butterflies evolved from the first single celled creature that crawled out of primordial goo.....
It's the same principles expanded over millions of years. What is possible in a million years is hard to comprehend when we only live 80 years.


I expect it's of great importance to trees.....is everything else you can't explain of "no matter" as well?
When you have proof of evolution happening every day, the details like tree migration is interesting but not crucial. I haven't studied trees so I have no idea.


back to irreducible complexity, Miss....can you speculate on how life came to be, when the DNA necessary to produce a cell capable of reproduction is more complex than could have developed in a single generation?......
"DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003). "
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html


Pete ya keep saying "evolution is a fact". :laugh2:

It is a theory, and in yer and Missile's case a religion butt: certainly NOT A FACT!

"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Do you know what this means? It means we observe and find evidence for evolution and we are trying to explain the mechanics. Evolution is a fact, the mechanics behind it are debated. Maybe god designed evolution...

[PostmodernProphet]

Caterpillars are simply butterfly larvae. Most insects have a larvae stage. They are not distinct species. Same species, different development stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis

/boggle....I understand what metamorphosis is, Pete......I am also aware the caterpillar isn't a different species from the butterfly......in fact, a caterpillar isn't only the same species as the butterfly, it's the same creature as the butterfly........that isn't the question....



It's the same principles expanded over millions of years. What is possible in a million years is hard to comprehend when we only live 80 years.
well, actually it isn't the same principle....its simply speculation.....seculars see the fossil of creature A and the fossil of creature B and speculate thousands of transitioning creatures that form a path between them.....why?.....not because science has proven it, but because they like to believe it's true.....



When you have proof of evolution happening every day, the details like tree migration is interesting but not crucial. I haven't studied trees so I have no idea.
ah, but you see the evolution you can see happening everyday falls apart as an overall plan when faced with little un-crucial details like this....creature A cannot exist without creature B, yet creature B wouldn't have evolved if creature A didn't already exist......





"DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003). "
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html
you see, seculars often confuse chemical reactions as action.....lets put it in simple terms.....the first single celled creature to crawl out of the primordial sludge died, leaving no heirs.....

[pete311]

/boggle....I understand what metamorphosis is, Pete......I am also aware the caterpillar isn't a different species from the butterfly......in fact, a caterpillar isn't only the same species as the butterfly, it's the same creature as the butterfly........that isn't the question....

then you need to be more clear, because your question was confusing. i don't think we're figured out the butterfly yet, these things take time to research. i have no idea what you are talking about when you ask why are they both. what????



well, actually it isn't the same principle....its simply speculation.....seculars see the fossil of creature A and the fossil of creature B and speculate thousands of transitioning creatures that form a path between them.....why?.....not because science has proven it, but because they like to believe it's true.....
That is simply not how science works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method



ah, but you see the evolution you can see happening everyday falls apart as an overall plan when faced with little un-crucial details like this....creature A cannot exist without creature B, yet creature B wouldn't have evolved if creature A didn't already exist......

again I am baffled at what you are saying. can you provide some sources to a situation like this?





you see, seculars often confuse chemical reactions as action.....lets put it in simple terms.....the first single celled creature to crawl out of the primordial sludge died, leaving no heirs.....
I have no idea what you are saying. Chemical reaction as action? crawl out? leaving no heirs? talk about speculation!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
Pete ya keep saying "evolution is a fact".

It is a theory, and in yer and Missile's case a religion butt: certainly NOT A FACT!


"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.


OH lookie here: a wiki based snarky look down yer nose "lesson" for the unwashed in semantics (yer lazy debate that impresses you as a true believer is nothing more then an attempt to baffle in high sounding bull chit), from other true believers trying to justify a failed theory. (Missile tried the same chit). :laugh2:

These are my own words, (not wiki):

A theory in constant flux that is soley based upon observations from thousands of years ago up to the present time where "empirical observations" of now known phenomena expressed as constantly changing "quantifiable properties" force fundamental changes in the theory's mechanism for change and made up, (by the true believers sucking up Gubment grants), and changing "rules" that express constantly changing relationships of such concepts as modern science is applied.

Translation: if the theory fails it has to be constantly changed to comport with science as science progresses as is the case with evolution THEORY NOT EVOLUTION FACT.

True believers try to couch the failure in high sounding scientific rhetoric as yer cite from wiki that you have applied here does.

Which theory is constantly changing and which theory still fits all observations from thousands of years ago right up to today?

Does yer brain werk????? :eek:


"A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations,"

My words again.

All theories attempt to do just that.

We do not yet have a way to empirically see the Intelligent Designer 2000 years after his last well known visit. That said, we can observe his work all the time and science actually increasingly proves the work and heavy hitters like Albert Einstien and Michael Behe, (two of many), are convinced that ID is the only way to account for what we actually observe, (empirically or otherwise).


"and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory


Using wiki to try to baffle in bull chit to talk down to the unwashed really impresses ya eh? NOT ME: sport.


Do you know what this means? It means we observe and find evidence for evolution and we are trying to explain the mechanics.

I think I have demonstrated that I clearly know what it means.


Evolution is a fact, the mechanics behind it are debated.

You obviously can't sort out what is fact from yer arse. :laugh2:

To me Jesus Christ is a fact. I acknowledge freely that it is based upon my personal faith not science, even though science supports ID, (not the nature of the Designer).

Evolution which is a very flawed theory that is in constant flux over thousands of years that can't explain where life came from is a wobbly theory and NOT FACT AT ALL except in the minds of true believers blinded by their faith as you obviously are.



Maybe god designed evolution...


10-4; IT TAKES FAR MORE FAITH TO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION WITHOUT DESIGN CORNTROL, as you obviously do.

[pete311]

These are my own words, (not wiki):

You have no scientific authority to be changing definitions.



Which theory is constantly changing and which theory still fits all observations from thousands of years ago right up to today?

Does yer brain werk?????
try just about every one. science is a compounding process. darwin improved on what he knew to form his ideas and now we improve on darwin's to make modern evolution theory.





Albert Einstien and Michael Behe, (two of many), are convinced that ID is the only way to account for what we actually observe, (empirically or otherwise).

Einstein has been dead for almost 60 years. He was a physicist not a biologist, he has no authority in the matter. Michael Behe is a fringe scientist who hasn't written an article in over a decade. Not even his university supports him.

"Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the scientific community,[3][4][5] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe

Let me guess, you're going to cry conspiracy. So predictable.



[COLOR="blue"]You obviously can't sort out what is fact from yer arse. :laugh2:

To me Jesus Christ is a fact. I acknowledge freely that it is based upon my personal faith not science, even though science supports ID, (not the nature of the Designer).


Most of your arguments are based off opinion or ad hominem. Good thing science doesn't work that way or we'd still be in the stone age.

[Missileman]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
How would you know what I understand about the theory. Ya cant read me brain cell no matter how good a mind reader ya think ya are.

Every post of yours demonstrates that you lack even the most basic grasp of the concept of evolution. Oh...I know you'll deny this, and post more lame crap about how I post silly chit...it's all you've been able to muster this entire thread.


If so called "intermediates" are successful complete organisms why are they intermediates at all?

Obviously (might I add, slap yourself in the forehead OBVIOUSLY), the conditions in which they were successful changed.




Now that I answered yer question, does yer brain werk?[/COLOR] :D :D :D

Actually, you didn't answer the question...a simple yes or no to my question is all that's needed.

[PostmodernProphet]

then you need to be more clear, because your question was confusing. i don't think we're figured out the butterfly yet, these things take time to research. i have no idea what you are talking about when you ask why are they both. what????

Can we begin with the assumption that the butterfly is a creature in evolutionary transition?.....if so, does it stem from a crawling creature that is developing towards spending a part of it's life as a flying creature or does it stem from a flying creature that is spending part of its life as a crawling creature.....and, either way, if it enhances it's ability to survive by becoming a flying creature, why does it continue to spend a portion of its life as a crawling creature.....



That is simply not how science works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
I'm sorry, but that is precisely how you are using science....personally, I agree with you....that isn't how science works.....but it IS how seculars are using it.....




again I am baffled at what you are saying. can you provide some sources to a situation like this?
I already have.....trees are spread by birds eating their seeds and crapping them out somewhere else.....the birds however, require the trees for a habitat.....no trees, no birds.....no birds, no trees....stalemate....





I have no idea what you are saying. Chemical reaction as action? crawl out? leaving no heirs? talk about speculation!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
I'm sorry, pete....I already know about abiogenesis.....apparently, you don't know enough about it to discuss the issue....what I posted refutes the possibility of abiogenesis explaining the origin of life......

[pete311]

Can we begin with the assumption that the butterfly is a creature in evolutionary transition?... if it enhances it's ability to survive by becoming a flying creature, why does it continue to spend a portion of its life as a crawling creature.....

Metamorphosis is not evolution. Again the caterpillar is the larvae stage of the butterfly. Many bugs have larvae stages and some have partial metamorphosis.

"Apparently at some point some insect eggs began hatching before they were fully formed. Cockroaches stayed on in their way, having no competitive pressures to change, but for other insects a nymph stage aided their survival and it was added to their life cycle. Eventually at some point a nymph formed a cocoon around itself before maturing to the adult stage. This enabled it to survive a winter and emerge full grown. So, by a long step by step process, the Complete Metamorphosis cycle did arise."
http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/butterfly-metamorphosis.html

"Why is that an advantage for the insect? When you have an insect that has, for example, two forms, like a caterpillar and a moth, the two stages are so completely different that they no longer compete with each other. The moth eats nectar, and the caterpillar eats leaves. There is no competition between the two, as there would be in a continually developing insect that ate both at some point. This lessening of inter species competition was a great help in allowing the species to propagate itself. Along with the lessening of the competition was the ability to take over new niches. A caterpillar and a butterfly could occupy different places in the ecosystem - this allowed for great diversification - another thing that has helped insects becomes so successful. "



I already have.....trees are spread by birds eating their seeds and crapping them out somewhere else.....the birds however, require the trees for a habitat.....no trees, no birds.....no birds, no trees....stalemate....

"Some trees reproduce vegetatively. They may sprout from the base of the trunk or roots, or have branches that form roots and grow into new trees under the proper conditions (e.g., Willow trees will grow from branch cuttings.) These trees also usually produce seeds."

"Oaks, walnuts, and hickories produce seeds high in nutrients (acorns and nuts). Squirrels, chipmunks, and mice store these for their winter survival. Some are buried, forgotten, and left to sprout. Oak trees often do not produce acorns every year, but have a very large acorn crop when they do. This strategy may have evolved so that some seeds will be left uneaten. Many seeds will float and can be carried for miles in streams and rivers. "

http://www.iowadnr.gov/education/cycles.html