Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 297

Thread: Explaining Evolution And Why GOD is NOT LIKELY

  1. #121
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    To state there is a GOD at work, prove there is a GOD at work. Pointing to something saying an invisible man in the heavens did it is not proof, it's not even a good assumption.

    Assumptions the good ones, have logic, and evidence behind them. This comes back to strict faith in the sense that you are saying something had to set it in motion, because you have no evidence to state it was set in motion. It's like telling your wife "I know you've been cheating on me", she says prove it, you can't..but now because you can't don't automatically mean she isn't cheating does it, nor does it mean you have proved your claim either..it's not up to her to prove she's not cheating. You made the claim she is it's your burden to prove it. You say there is a GOD that kickstarted life and creation...okay prove there is an actual physical GOD and I'll say ya'll are right.

    But if you're going to hand me a book full of bad logic, contradicting stories and moral tales, and the only explanation you have is it had to be "created" but it's too complex not to have been...you've proven nothing but that you have faith..and argument from personal experience is not evidence.
    I understand you were talking to Paul, but I just have to address this.

    You call the bible a book of bad logic, why? You are the one who has an improper view of it. A lot of what you reason it to be is from a jaded viewpoint, and it appears you are not even trying to understand it. Yet you are quick to call it bad logic, contradicting and fairy tale-ish. But you have not proven that. What you have proven however is that you have the slightest Idea of what the bible really teaches.

    I have seen you try and disprove prophecy but have failed miserably. I have not seen you disprove my post on the fossil record which would lend a big help to your argument.

    And yet, you said you would absolutely do so when this thread started.

    At best you are in the same boat you say we are. You believe what you believe based on what you percieve to be evidence, and we rely on the bible based on what we percieve to be it.

    But don't get me wrong, I commend you on your beliefs, and the time you take to try and understand, and even argue your point of view. I myself, my head would probably spin if I was trying to understand the intricasies by what you have learned through science. But unless you objectively listen to arguments against what you believe, you cannot even begin to understand an argument presented for the other side.
    Last edited by Knicks4lyfe; Jul 24, 2008 at 14:07.

  2. #122
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    To PAUL 1355

    #5)Talking about infinite time..

    Your talking about William Lane Craig against the infinity (in time) of the universe:

    He stated: "The argument states that the universe could not have existed an infinite amount of time since (by nature of the infinite) an infinite amount of time can never have passed. An infinite amount of time already passed is clearly a contradiction".

    But here is where he messed up; Allow me to explain

    Assume we have a line extending in both directions to infinity. Place two points on that line, and measure the distance.

    To measure time (or space) we can not measure it, without defining two points on the (time) line, to measure the interval. Since the line itself is infinite, we can place the points wherever we want.Yet, wherever we place the two points, the measured distance between them is always finite. This however is in no way in contradiction with the fact that the line is infinite, since wherever we place our two points, we could always place the points further apart and achieve a greater distance, which clearly shows the line is infinite.

    An infinite line does by definition not have a beginning. From the fact that the line is thought to be infinite follows, that there isn't a point which is the begin of the line. So in other words, we can not have put our point there in the first place. And wherever we place our two points, the distance between them (the measure of time) is always a finite number.

    Mathematician Jeffery Shallit also agrees with me, "He notes that, presuming an infinite past, an infinite amount of time having already past implies an infinite chain of events having taken place. Fine so far. Next, he tries to claim that an infinite chain of events having taken place is impossible. A person might find that hard to grasp because an infinite chain of events would take too much time - but that is exactly what was originally proposed, an infinite amount of time in the past. Craig has not shown a contradiction or impossibility in the system, he has merely displayed a cognitive prejudice".

    A big bang singularity wouldn't contradict any conservation laws because it represents the foundation of the universe and thus the foundation of those laws. There is no "other side" of the singularity, to represent a starting point from which the universe issued. All we have is a universe that we can trace back to a singularity and no further. The singularity is the beginning of time itself. Questions about a cause of the universe are simply misconceived.

    But if you don't like the theory in regards to a singularity, would you prefer we discussed this in terms of Quantum mechanics, string theory, and M theory next?

    And just on another note I do understand these theories my minor in college was Physics. I majored in Psychology because I wanted to help my fellow Army veterans coming home from Iraq.

  3. #123
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    For :KNICKS4LYFE
    I'm going to try and go through all the Paleontology as easily as I can for you. As well I'm also going to try and go through each of the arguments I think you made. I would go back and read specifically what you wrote, but it's taking way to long to scroll up.

    Some for time sake I'm just going to write on the one's I know of specifically and the principles involved. If there is any specific one I don't mention here you'd like me to give you a response on by all means state it..separately from your whole response to this...answering this one by one is much easier and saves thread space.

    Generally, creationists misunderstand the concept of "transitional fossil." Transitional fossils are notable not because we know for certain that they are direct ancestors of modern lines, but because their distinctive patterns of traits demonstrate the overall structures of the lineages.
    Scientists concluded based on anatomical evidence that there was a relationship before any transitional fossils were found at all. Other evidence includes parallel retrovirus insertions and having chimpanzee genes deactivated by transposons.

    If this were true it still wouldn't be a problem. We have lots of transition fossils between humans and other apes. This argument must have been invented before it was relativity trivial to map a whole genome. In light of that ability, this claim is obsolete because genetic comparisons point to the chimpanzee and bonobo as being our closest relatives. The whole basis of this argument is incorrect because we never descended from apes but instead diverged from a common ancestor of both chimpanzees and humans around 8 million years ago in the Miocene era. Humans are, in fact, a species of apes.

    There has been plenty of evidence that humans are changing. The heights and lifespans of humans have been changed both by lifestyle and environment in just the last century. Far fewer people today have palmaris longus tendons in their arms than did 50,000 years ago In fact modern Homo sapiens first appeared around 200,000 years ago.Even if this claim was true it would also invalidate Young earth creationism because that claim also states that the earth is over 6,000 to 11,000 years old.

    There are in fact differences between archaic homo sapiens and modern homo sapiens, thought the differences are negligible. Archaic homo sapiens possessed more pronounced brow ridges, greater post orbital constriction, less mental protuberance (chin), and a flatter, longer cranial vault. Indeed early homo sapiens are believed to existed as far back as 100,000-200,000 years, depending on how you classify the recovered fossils.

    It's important to note that outside of a layperson discussion, what really matters to biologists and paleontologists is not so much "transitional fossils," but the transitional features OF fossils. As often envisioned by creationists, the meaning of the statement is absolutely correct in that there are no transitional fossils in the sense of the very narrow definition used by creationists (i.e. a half-lizard/half-pig creature). The point to remember here is that all creatures that have existed are fully formed and functional organisms, suited to their own particular environment. Just to name a few of the more well known examples, Archaeopteryx, Hyracotherium, and Ambulocetus are all excellent, textbook, examples of a so-called "transitional" species, which were nevertheless well adapted to their own particular environments.

    Creationists who make this claim are often not really asking for any single example, as biologists generally are used to using the term. Instead, the request is really for a full series intermediate fossils: a request that is both unnecessary and also generally impossible to satisfy. When you show a transitional form between Fossil A and Z (let’s call the new fossil ‘G’) creationists can always ask for fossil C and P. When C and P are dug up, then they ask for B, F, Q and W, and so on.

    This continues until you show a fossil from every individual organism from every population that ever existed on this planet: until then they can always ask for more intermediate forms. We know from how fossilization works that this expectation is simply wrong: we should never expect to see such a complete fossil record, and the validity of evolution does not rest on finding this impossible circumstance and never has.In another sense of the word, all species that have ever lived are "transitional," except for the ones who have gone extinct and left no descendants. They are one species in the middle of a past and future species, thereby making them transitional.

    Having the expected number of transitional fossils does not involve having fossils that are intermediaries between all known species. Taking that logic to its conclusion suggests that we must have a fossil of every single individual creature that ever lived, which is absurd. Transitional fossils are, instead, fossils that have particular groupings of traits from different groups that demonstrate a line of ancestry from one group to another (generally an ancient extinct group to a later or modern one). There are plenty of these sorts of fossils: more than enough to satisfy our basic expectations of the ways in which the fossil record should confirm common descent.

    Fossils in general are not very common and as such are not found often. One would only expect billions of transitional fossils (or whatever large number is being used) if there were actually billions of fossils to be found. Fossilization is not only rare, it happens at differential rates depending on the type of ancient environment. For instance, we have very few fossils from acidic forests (which destroy most bones before they can become fossils) and many from silt riverbeds and certain marine environments. Expecting the same level of detail for all areas of the fossil record involves completely ignoring everything we know about the formation of fossils.

    If every organism that ever lived had left a fossil when it died, and all those fossils had survived to present day, then there would be billions of transitional fossils. However, if that had happened, at the very least, we'd all be up to our earlobes in fossil passenger pigeons, a now-extinct bird which, as late as the 19th Century, congregated in flocks that contained, literally, billions of individuals (the largest flock was estimated to contain 2 billion individuals). Since we are, in fact, not up to our earlobes in fossilized passenger pigeons, the premise is refuted by the evidence.

    Paleontologist David M. Raup in his 1994 paper "The Role of Extinction in Evolution" estimated that we had unearthed perhaps 250,000 fossil species representing at most a few percent of all of the species that have ever lived. By this estimate the vast majority of transitional fossils remain undiscovered.

    1. "Transitional" is a term bestowed in retrospect: only after a future branch of species has become established can we look back and declare that some past species (or their living descendants) was transitional. Transitional forms are also defined more by the clues they give to common ancestry than they are about their own direct descent or direct ancestry.

    2. Common descent requires a continuity among animals over time, but extinction allows for discrete groups of creatures in the present.

    3. No, there shouldn't. There should be morphological intermediates between living creatures, not transitionals. Transitional fossils illustrate a vertical progression, whereas intermediates illustrate a horizontal progression. Since there can be no depth of time among "living creatures", you can only get intermediates. And yes, there are many.

    4. Intermediates could never live today because natural selection would have weeded them out.

    5. In fact all living creatures will be considered 'transitional', except the forms that will go extinct and leave no descendants, because all clades have some features found in the previous clade and some features of the present clade will also found in the future clade.

    6. The creationists who make this claim are painfully ignorant of ring-species, as well as species gradients.

    7. While evolution is a relatively smooth process individual to individual, fossilization is not.

    8. Likewise, while evolution is gradual in the basic succession of individuals, the pace of overall changes on a geologic scale can vary widely. Confusing "gradual change" between individuals with the idea of "steady, ongoing, and even" rates of change in the long term is a mistake.

    9.Fossilization is less likely to happen with transitional species as their populations are small and shortly lived; relative to successful species.

    10. Some groups of organisms are more likely to be fossilized than other groups.

    11.The fossil histories of many groups, such as brachiopods, trilobites, ammonites, nautiloids, and horses, do, in fact, show a smooth evolutionary continuum.

    12.Fossils are rare and fragile, there are alot which do show smooth transitions, but the entire fossil record cannot always be perfect. Of all the billions of creatures living on Earth today only a tiny percentage of them will be fossilized. This does not mean they never existed. Just that the conditions were not perfect for preservation.

    13.Does there need to be an example in the fossil record of every species that ever lived for evolution to be true?

    Scientists do not consider the fossil record to be the primary evidence of evolution or common descent. This is a creationist misapprehension.

    Complexity is relative. Bacteria are complex relative to inorganic compounds, but not relative to protists or elephants. This is a tendency (but not a requirement) of evolution. Evolution can also lead to a loss of complexity, if that is a survival boon. The fact that bacteria still exist today, alongside humans (as well as inside and on the surface of humans, too), is an a posteriori indication that the survival strategies of prokaryotes vs eukaryotes are more or less as good as each other.

    Today's bacteria are the result of billions of years of evolution. Primitive bacteria were undoubtely significantly simpler.

    Strata can, have been, and still are independently verified without reference to fossils through any number of different methods, including the dating of radioactive isotopes present in igneous rock samples. There is, however, a clear and undeniable pattern between the fossils and strata. Pointing out this pattern is not circular. Using fossils is a cheap and easy way to date strata, or vice-versa, but it is only possible because the evidence for the connection has already been well established as being very strong. Pointing out that this pattern confirms evolutionary theory is not circular either.

    Talking about no new fossils. Birds and other small animals are rescued from the La Brea Tarpits, in Los Angeles, on a daily basis. Many of these entrapped animals are rescued, many more, sadly, are overlooked and sink into the tar.

  4. #124
    Veteran jpz17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,782
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    this is pointless to fight over, no one will win

  5. #125
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    [QUOTE=jpz17;62045]this is pointless to fight over, no one will win

    Such a defeatist.

  6. #126
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default So are you saying..

    That the fossil record is pointless endeavor? I would think that if it showed vast change from one species to the next, it would lend itself as very credible evidence for your argument. But since it is not doing that, I feel that you and scientists that expected it too, are now trying to downplay the importance of what it does LEND credence to. Quite simply, if it does not show gradual change of any sort, whose side of the argument does it lend credence to?

    Now you will probably say it's not that simple, but if we had a ton of transitional or intermediate fossils running around, would you sit here and let me debate whether it was that simple or not? Or would you likely pretty much conclude case closed?

  7. #127
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Huge
    Gulfs—Can Evolution Bridge Them?

    FOSSILS give tangible evidence of the varieties of life that existed long before man’s arrival. But they have not produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life began or how new kinds got started thereafter. Commenting on the lack of transitional fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places."1

    2 The important places he refers to are the gaps between the major divisions of animal life. An example of this is that fish are thought to have evolved from the invertebrates, creatures without a backbone. "Fish jump into the fossil record," Hitching says, "seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, full formed."2 Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: "In a sense this account is science fiction."3

    3 Evolutionary theory presumes that fish became amphibians, some amphibians became reptiles, from the reptiles came both mammals and birds, and eventually some mammals became men. The previous chapter has shown that the fossil record does not support these claims. This chapter will concentrate on the magnitude of the assumed transitional steps. As you read on, consider the likelihood of such changes happening spontaneously by undirected chance.

    The Gulf Between Fish and Amphibian

    4 It was the backbone that distinguished the fish from the invertebrates. This backbone would have had to undergo major modifications for the fish to become amphibian, that is, a creature that could live both in the water and on land. A pelvis had to be added, but no fossil fish are known that show how the pelvis of amphibians developed. In some amphibians, such as frogs and toads, the entire backbone would have had to change beyond recognition. Also, skull bones are different. In addition, in the forming of amphibians, evolution requires fish fins to become jointed limbs with wrists and toes, accompanied by major alterations in muscles and nerves. Gills must change to lungs. In fish, blood is pumped by a two-chambered heart, but in amphibians by a three-chambered heart.

    5 To bridge the gap between fish and amphibian, the sense of hearing would have had to undergo a radical change. In general, fish receive sound through their bodies, but most toads and frogs have eardrums. Tongues would also have to change. No fish has an extendable tongue, but amphibians such as toads do. Amphibian eyes have the added ability to blink, since they have a membrane they pass over their eyeballs, keeping them clean.

    6 Strenuous efforts have been made to link the amphibians to some fish ancestor, but without success. The lungfish had been a favorite candidate, since, in addition to gills, it has a swim bladder, which can be used for breathing when it is temporarily out of the water. Says the book The Fishes: "It is tempting to think they might have some direct connection with the amphibians which led to the land-living vertebrates. But they do not; they are a separate group entirely."4 David Attenborough disqualifies both the lungfish and the coelacanth "because the bones of their skulls are so different from those of the first fossil amphibians that the one cannot be derived from the other."5

    The
    Gulf Between Amphibian and Reptile

    7 Trying to bridge the gap between amphibian and reptile poses other serious problems. A most difficult one is the origin of the shelled egg. Creatures prior to reptiles laid their soft, jellylike eggs in water, where the eggs were fertilized externally. Reptiles are land based and lay their eggs on land, but the developing embryos inside them must still be in a watery environment. The shelled egg was the answer. But it also required a major change in the process of fertilization: It called for internal fertilization, before the egg is surrounded by a shell. To accomplish this involved new sexual organs, new mating procedures and new instincts—all of which constitute a vast gulf between amphibian and reptile.

    8 Enclosing the egg in a shell made necessary further remarkable changes in order to make possible the development of a reptile and, finally, its release from the shell. For example, within the shell there is the need for various membranes and sacs, such as the amnion. This holds in the fluid in which the embryo grows. The Reptiles describes another membrane called the allantois: "The allantois receives and stores embryonic waste, serving as a sort of bladder. It also has blood vessels that pick up oxygen that passes through the shell and conduct it to the embryo."6

    9 Evolution has not accounted for other complex differences involved. Embryos in fish and amphibian eggs release their wastes in the surrounding water as soluble urea. But urea within the shelled eggs of reptiles would kill the embryos. So, in the shelled egg a major chemical change is made: The wastes, insoluble uric acid, are stored within the allantois membrane. Consider this also: The egg yolk is food for the growing reptile embryo, enabling it to develop fully before emerging from the shell—unlike amphibians, which do not hatch in the adult form. And to get out of the shell, the embryo is distinctive in having an egg tooth, to help it break out of its prison.

    10 Much more is needed to bridge the gap between amphibian and reptile, but these examples show that undirected chance just cannot account for all the many complex changes required to bridge that wide gulf. No wonder evolutionist Archie Carr lamented: "One of the frustrating features of the fossil record of vertebrate history is that it shows so little about the evolution of reptiles during their earliest days, when the shelled egg was developing."


    The
    Gulf Between Reptile and Bird

    11 Reptiles are cold-blooded animals, meaning that their internal temperature will either increase or decrease depending upon the outside temperature. Birds, on the other hand, are warm-blooded; their bodies maintain a relatively constant internal temperature regardless of the temperature outside. To solve the puzzle of how warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles, some evolutionists now say that some of the dinosaurs (which were reptiles) were warm-blooded. But the general view is still as Robert Jastrow observes: "Dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were cold-blooded animals."8

    12 Lecomte du Noüy, the French evolutionist, said concerning the belief that warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles: "This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles of evolution." He also made the admission that birds have "all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation"9—unsatisfactory, that is, to the theory of evolution.

    13 While it is true that both reptiles and birds lay eggs, only birds must incubate theirs. They are designed for it. Many birds have a brood spot on their breast, an area that does not have any feathers and that contains a network of blood vessels, to give warmth for the eggs. Some birds have no brood patch but they pull out the feathers from their breast. Also, for birds to incubate the eggs would require evolution to provide them with new instincts—for building the nest, for hatching the eggs and for feeding the young—very selfless, altruistic, considerate behaviors involving skill, hard work and deliberate exposure to danger. All of this represents a wide gap between reptiles and birds. But there is much more.

    14 Feathers are unique to birds. Supposedly, reptilian scales just happened to become these amazing structures. Out from the shaft of a feather are rows of barbs. Each barb has many barbules, and each barbule has hundreds of barbicels and hooklets. After a microscopic examination of one pigeon feather, it was revealed that it had "several hundred thousand barbules and millions of barbicels and hooklets." These hooks hold all the parts of a feather together to make flat surfaces or vanes. Nothing excels the feather as an airfoil, and few substances equal it as an insulator. A bird the size of a swan has some 25,000 feathers.

    15 If the barbs of these feathers become separated, they are combed with the beak. The beak applies pressure as the barbs pass through it, and the hooks on the barbules link together like the teeth of a zipper. Most birds have an oil gland at the base of the tail from which they take oil to condition each feather. Some birds have no oil gland but instead have special feathers that fray at their tips to produce a fine talclike dust for conditioning their feathers. And feathers usually are renewed by molting once a year.

    16 Knowing all of this about the feather, consider this rather astonishing effort to explain its development: "How did this structural marvel evolve? It takes no great stretch of imagination to envisage a feather as a modified scale, basically like that of a reptile—a longish scale loosely attached, whose outer edges frayed and spread out until it evolved into the highly complex structure that it is today."11 But do you think such an explanation is truly scientific? Or does it read more like science fiction?

    17 Consider further the design of the bird for flight. The bird’s bones are thin and hollow, unlike the reptile’s solid ones. Yet strength is required for flight, so inside the bird’s bones there are struts, like the braces inside of airplane wings. This design of the bones serves another purpose: It helps to explain another exclusive marvel of birds—their respiratory system.

    18 Muscular wings beating for hours or even days in flight generate much heat, yet, without sweat glands for cooling, the bird copes with the problem—it has an air-cooled "engine." A system of air sacs reach into almost every important part of the body, even into the hollow bones, and body heat is relieved by this internal circulation of air. Also, because of these air sacs, birds extract oxygen from air much more efficiently than any other vertebrate. How is this done?

    19 In reptiles and mammals, the lungs take in and give out air, like bellows that alternately fill and empty. But in birds there is a constant flow of fresh air going through the lungs, during both inhaling and exhaling. Simply put, the system works like this: When the bird inhales, the air goes to certain air sacs; these serve as bellows to push the air into the lungs. From the lungs the air goes into other air sacs, and these eventually expel it. This means that there is a stream of fresh air constantly going through the lungs in one direction, much like water flowing through a sponge. The blood in the capillaries of the lungs is flowing in the opposite direction. It is this countercurrent between air and blood that makes the bird’s respiratory system exceptional. Because of it, birds can breathe the thin air of high altitudes, flying at over 20,000 feet for days on end as they migrate thousands of miles.

    20 Other features widen the gulf between bird and reptile. Eyesight is one. From eagles to warblers, there are eyes like telescopes and eyes like magnifying glasses. Birds have more sensory cells in their eyes than have any other living things. Also, the feet of birds are different. When they come down to roost, tendons automatically lock their toes around the branch. And they have only four toes instead of the reptile’s five. Additionally, they have no vocal cords, but they have a syrinx out of which come melodious songs like those of the nightingales and mockingbirds. Consider too, that reptiles have a three-chambered heart; a bird’s heart has four chambers. Beaks also set birds apart from reptiles: beaks that serve as nutcrackers, beaks that filter food from muddy water, beaks that hammer out holes in trees, crossbill beaks that open up pinecones—the variety seems endless. And yet the beak, with such specialized design, is said to have evolved by chance from the nose of a reptile! Does such an explanation seem credible to you?

    21 At one time evolutionists believed that Archaeopteryx, meaning "ancient wing" or "ancient bird," was a link between reptile and bird. But now, many do not. Its fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers on aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wing and leg bones were thin and hollow. Its supposed reptilian features are found in birds today. And it does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period as Archaeopteryx.12

    The
    Gulf Between Reptile and Mammal

    22 Major differences leave a wide gulf between reptiles and mammals. The very name "mammal" points up one big difference: the existence of mammary glands that give milk for the young, which are born alive. Theodosius Dobzhansky suggested that these milk glands "may be modified sweat glands."13 But reptiles do not even have sweat glands. Moreover, sweat glands give off waste products, not food. And unlike baby reptiles, the mammalian young have both the instincts and the muscles to suck the milk from their mother.

    23 Mammals have other features, also, that are not found in reptiles. Mammalian mothers have highly complex placentas for the nourishment and development of their unborn young. Reptiles do not. There is no diaphragm in reptiles, but mammals have a diaphragm that separates the thorax from the abdomen. The organ of Corti in the ears of mammals is not found in reptilian ears. This tiny complex organ has 20,000 rods and 30,000 nerve endings. Mammals maintain a constant body temperature, whereas reptiles do not.

    24 Mammals also have three bones in their ears, while reptiles have only one. Where did the two "extras" come from? Evolutionary theory attempts to explain it as follows: Reptiles have at least four bones in the lower jaw, whereas mammals have only one; so, when reptiles became mammals there was supposedly a reshuffling of bones; some from the reptile’s lower jaw moved to the mammal’s middle ear to make the three bones there and, in the process, left only one for the mammal’s lower jaw. However, the problem with this line of reasoning is that there is no fossil evidence whatsoever to support it. It is merely wishful conjecture.

    25 Another problem involving bones: Reptilian legs are anchored at the side of the body so that the belly is on or very near the ground. But in mammals the legs are under the body and raise it off the ground. Regarding this difference, Dobzhansky commented: "This change, minor though it may seem, has necessitated widespread alterations of the skeleton and the musculature." He then acknowledged another major difference between reptiles and mammals: "Mammals have greatly elaborated their teeth. Instead of the simple peg-like teeth of the reptile, there is a great variety of mammalian teeth adapted for nipping, grasping, piercing, cutting, pounding, or grinding food."14

    26 One last item: When the amphibian supposedly evolved into a reptile, the wastes eliminated were noted to have changed from urea to uric acid. But when the reptile became a mammal there was a reversal. Mammals went back to the amphibian way, eliminating wastes as urea. In effect, evolution went backward—something that theoretically it is not supposed to do.

    The Greatest Gulf of All
    27 Physically, man fits the general definition of a mammal. However, one evolutionist stated: "No more tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care."15

    28 What sets man apart from all other creatures on earth is his brain. The information stored in some 100 billion neurons of the human brain would fill about 20 million volumes! The power of abstract thought and of speech sets man far apart from any animal, and the ability to record accumulating knowledge is one of man’s most remarkable characteristics. Use of this knowledge has enabled him to surpass all other living kinds on earth—even to the point of going to the moon and back. Truly, as one scientist said, man’s brain "is different and immeasurably more complicated than anything else in the known universe."16


    29 Another feature that makes the gulf between man and animal the greatest one of all is man’s moral and spiritual values, which stem from such qualities as love, justice, wisdom, power, mercy. This is alluded to in Genesis when it says that man is made ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ And it is the gulf between man and animal that is the greatest chasm of all.—Genesis 1:26.

    30 Thus, vast differences exist between the major divisions of life. Many new structures, programmed instincts and qualities separate them. Is it reasonable to think they could have originated by means of undirected chance happenings? As we have seen, the fossil evidence does not support that view. No fossils can be found to bridge the gaps. As Hoyle and Wickramasinghe say: "Intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms."17 For those whose ears are open to hear, the fossil record is saying: "Special creation."

  8. #128
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    That the fossil record is pointless endeavor? I would think that if it showed vast change from one species to the next, it would lend itself as very credible evidence for your argument. But since it is not doing that, I feel that you and scientists that expected it too, are now trying to downplay the importance of what it does LEND credence to. Quite simply, if it does not show gradual change of any sort, whose side of the argument does it lend credence to?

    Now you will probably say it's not that simple, but if we had a ton of transitional or intermediate fossils running around, would you sit here and let me debate whether it was that simple or not? Or would you likely pretty much conclude case closed?
    All of that in a full concise explanation and this is the summation of your response. Now I know you have no clue as to the science involved.

  9. #129
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Nuff Said!!!
    Attached Images Attached Images

  10. #130
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    All of that in a full concise explanation and this is the summation of your response. Now I know you have no clue as to the science involved.
    Actually, no I don't have a clue, but clearly the scientists in the last post I presented do.

    And they seem to think Science is spinning it's wheels so to speak. Smarter people than you and I. THEY ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH SCIENCE IS INVOLVED AND IT STILL DOES NOT ADD UP!

    At the end of the day, Scientists sought out to prove evolution is a fact by the fossil record. It was a scientific endeavor. The fossil record does not agree with evolution, and because it does not, even though scientists expected it to, to support their belief, some shrink back and say "it's not a primary part of evolution"

    I don't need to understand every nuke and cranny of science and what goes in it to understand that it has not proven evolution. In fact is lends more credibilty to intelligent design. Which all you need in effect is the bible then afterall. Gee, who woulda thunk it?

  11. #131
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    To PAUL 1355

    #5)Talking about infinite time..

    Your talking about William Lane Craig against the infinity (in time) of the universe:

    He stated: "The argument states that the universe could not have existed an infinite amount of time since (by nature of the infinite) an infinite amount of time can never have passed. An infinite amount of time already passed is clearly a contradiction".

    But here is where he messed up; Allow me to explain

    Assume we have a line extending in both directions to infinity. Place two points on that line, and measure the distance.

    To measure time (or space) we can not measure it, without defining two points on the (time) line, to measure the interval. Since the line itself is infinite, we can place the points wherever we want.Yet, wherever we place the two points, the measured distance between them is always finite. This however is in no way in contradiction with the fact that the line is infinite, since wherever we place our two points, we could always place the points further apart and achieve a greater distance, which clearly shows the line is infinite.

    An infinite line does by definition not have a beginning. From the fact that the line is thought to be infinite follows, that there isn't a point which is the begin of the line. So in other words, we can not have put our point there in the first place. And wherever we place our two points, the distance between them (the measure of time) is always a finite number.

    Mathematician Jeffery Shallit also agrees with me, "He notes that, presuming an infinite past, an infinite amount of time having already past implies an infinite chain of events having taken place. Fine so far. Next, he tries to claim that an infinite chain of events having taken place is impossible. A person might find that hard to grasp because an infinite chain of events would take too much time - but that is exactly what was originally proposed, an infinite amount of time in the past. Craig has not shown a contradiction or impossibility in the system, he has merely displayed a cognitive prejudice".

    A big bang singularity wouldn't contradict any conservation laws because it represents the foundation of the universe and thus the foundation of those laws. There is no "other side" of the singularity, to represent a starting point from which the universe issued. All we have is a universe that we can trace back to a singularity and no further. The singularity is the beginning of time itself. Questions about a cause of the universe are simply misconceived.

    But if you don't like the theory in regards to a singularity, would you prefer we discussed this in terms of Quantum mechanics, string theory, and M theory next?

    And just on another note I do understand these theories my minor in college was Physics. I majored in Psychology because I wanted to help my fellow Army veterans coming home from Iraq.

    You do have more of a scientific background than i do so debating on Physics would be foolish on my part and i realized that. I dont even like Science in school anyways lol so debating on it wouldnt end pretty for myself. I didnt want this to go off topic i just wanted to talk about the Cosmological argument becuase i listend to a man named Frank Turek who brought up the Cosmoligical Argument and inspired me to really look into it. I just wanted to see how an Atheist like yourslef would respond to it. And the 5th and 6th questons that u still have to work on i would also like to hear, no rush take your time, its a deep question. Thanks for you response and still waitin on the others.

  12. #132
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    The time in our past where Christianity was the most followed religion, where its word was law, is also known as the Dark Ages. The worst part of human history is also the part where Christianity was the most prevalent.

  13. #133
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    I'D REALLY LIKE YOU TO DISCUSS THE FOSSIL RECORD POST IN THE RELIGIOUS THREAD ON THE LAST PAGE I PUT UP. I cannot understand how you have not once addressed it, yet say I should believe in evolution based on it.
    I finally had the opportunity to thoroughly review your post on the fossil record. Shame on you! The majority of these are lies, misquotes and quotes taken out of context. Doesn’t the bible say something about not lying or “bearing false witness”? The fact that you lie in an attempt to prove your faith true, forces me to question your religion further. It also makes me question the type of person you really are.

    The first quote I will go over is the one that pisses me off the most.

    Astronomer Carl Sagan candidly acknowledged in his book Cosmos: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”
    Carl Sagan is the most brilliant and eloquent man I have ever read. I’ve read “Cosmos” twice, just finished reading “Billions and Billions”, and am currently reading “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors”. I also own the Cosmos PBS special DVD boxset and have watched it numerous times. Carl Sagan has written about acceptance and cherishing life more than the bible ever has. He has been a great inspiration in my life and for you to misquote him to try and prove your religion true, angers me greatly.

    Here is the actual quote:
    The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer

    Another misquote:
    37 “The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life,” concludes evolutionist Edmund Samuel in his book Order: In Life. Why not? He adds: “No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.”
    Actual quote:
    ...on the whole, evolution has been extremely beneficial in ordering our thoughts. On the other hand, the concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life in space and time. It must remain as a rather low level explanation to any purist. This is because the data must be used circumstantially and no fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution. Biogeographic data are so complex that even with island studies only the rough generalities similar to those Darwin found for Galapagos can be stated. The fossil record is very uneven and so scarce that fine points regarding the pathways of evolution remain obscure...

    The content of the omitted portions at the beginning and end of the original quote show that it is not Samuel's intention to indicate his lack of support in general for evolution. The omitted portion in the middle of the original quote is critical to the point that Samuel is trying to make. He is arguing that evolution is not a strong explanation in a philosophical sense but rather depends on circumstantial evidence.


    There are also several quotes involving the amount of life forming during the Cambrian period. This is known as the Cambrian Explosion which is defined as the seemingly rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record. The evidence of the Cambrian Explosion does not support creationist theory nor does it disprove evolution as an explanation to the fossil record. Granted, it has not been fully explained or understood, but there are many plausible theories. One being an increase in the earth’s overall temperature, oxygen and carbon dioxide levels creating the “perfect” conditions for life to survive. This theory has been supported by several ice cores taken in Antarctica showing the various atmospheric composition levels throughout Earth’s history.


    4 If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.

    5 Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.

    6 In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory: “It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.”4 As Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous.”5
    This is just simply not true. There are actually hundreds of known transitional species displaying a gradual change in physical adaptations. Here are just a few:

    Ambulocetus:




    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
    Ambulocetus ("walking whale") was an early cetacean that could walk as well as swim. It lived during early Eocene some 50-49 milion years ago. It is a transitional fossil that shows how whales evolved from land-living mammals.


    Did you know whales have femur bones (also known as the thigh bone)? Hmmm.


    Tiktaalik:



    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
    Tiktaalik is a genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fish from the late Devonian period, with many features akin to those of tetrapods (four-legged animals).[1] It is an example from several lines of ancient sarcopterygian fish developing adaptations to the oxygen-poor shallow-water habitats of its time,[2] which led to the evolution of amphibians.


    Archaeopteryx:



    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
    The features above make Archaeopteryx the first clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds.[1][2] Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs.


    Here are even a couple of transitional species found today:

    Clarias batrachus: Walking catfish:


    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
    The walking catfish, Clarias batrachus, is a species of freshwater airbreathing catfish found primarily in Southeast Asia, so named for its ability to "walk" across dry land.

    Duck Billed Platypus:


    A mammal that lays eggs. Recent DNA sequencing of the platypus shows it to be more closely related to a reptile than a bird.

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
    The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) is a semi-aquatic mammal endemic to eastern Australia, including Tasmania. Together with the four species of echidna, it is one of the five extant species of monotremes, the only mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young. It is the sole living representative of its family (Ornithorhynchidae) and genus (Ornithorhynchus), though a number of related species have been found in the fossil record.

    Must I go on?


    Stop the lies...Accept the Truth...And you shall be Free
    Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Jul 26, 2008 at 00:31.

  14. #134
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Carl Sagan was one of the most brilliant scientists and philosophers of modern times. He has been a great inspiration in my life. I don't expect the religious people to read "Cosmos", but for those of you reading this thread with an open mind, I suggest you do so.

    Here is an example of Carl Sagan's brilliance and eloquence.

    Carl Sagan was a chief advisor to NASA with the Voyager 1 mission. During which, he convinced reluctant NASA scientists to turn the Voyager satellite around when it reached the end of our solar system and photograph Earth. The result is one of the most influential and profound pictures ever taken.



    This picture, taken over 4 billion miles away, helps put us into perspective and eventually inspired Carl Sagan to write "Pale Blue Dot":

    Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader", every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

    The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

    Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

    The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

    It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.
    Last edited by LJ4ptplay; Jul 26, 2008 at 09:54.

  15. #135
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    I finally had the opportunity to thoroughly review your post on the fossil record. Shame on you! The majority of these are lies, misquotes and quotes taken out of context. Doesn’t the bible say something about not lying or “bearing false witness”? The fact that you lie in an attempt to prove your faith true, forces me to question your religion further. It also makes me question the type of person you really are.

    The first quote I will go over is the one that pisses me off the most.



    Carl Sagan is the most brilliant and eloquent man I have ever read. I’ve read “Cosmos” twice, just finished reading “Billions and Billions”, and am currently reading “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors”. I also own the Cosmos PBS special DVD boxset and have watched it numerous times. Carl Sagan has written about acceptance and cherishing life more than the bible ever has. He has been a great inspiration in my life and for you to misquote him to try and prove your religion true, angers me greatly.

    Here is the actual quote:
    The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer
    Im trying to figure out how he was misquoted? Just because he continues to elaborate and give his opinion that the designer would be inefficient, does not mean he was misquoted. He still said,The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer





    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Another misquote:


    Actual quote:
    ...on the whole, evolution has been extremely beneficial in ordering our thoughts. On the other hand, the concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life in space and time. It must remain as a rather low level explanation to any purist. This is because the data must be used circumstantially and no fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution. Biogeographic data are so complex that even with island studies only the rough generalities similar to those Darwin found for Galapagos can be stated. The fossil record is very uneven and so scarce that fine points regarding the pathways of evolution remain obscure...

    The content of the omitted portions at the beginning and end of the original quote show that it is not Samuel's intention to indicate his lack of support in general for evolution. The omitted portion in the middle of the original quote is critical to the point that Samuel is trying to make. He is arguing that evolution is not a strong explanation in a philosophical sense but rather depends on circumstantial evidence.
    Again, this is not a misquote. And the original text did not say this person does not believe in evolution, it quotes them because most of them DO believe in it! And it partially, or fully quotes to emphasize their point in refuting it, the same way you would use a quote to refute a point in if helps you make one.

    Jesus is a hero of mine, Carl Sagan a hero of yours. I'm not calling you a liar and such because you defend a man chasing monkies and such to make your points do I?





    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    There are also several quotes involving the amount of life forming during the Cambrian period. This is known as the Cambrian Explosion which is defined as the seemingly rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record. The evidence of the Cambrian Explosion does not support creationist theory nor does it disprove evolution as an explanation to the fossil record. Granted, it has not been fully explained or understood, but there are many plausible theories. One being an increase in the earth’s overall temperature, oxygen and carbon dioxide levels creating the “perfect” conditions for life to survive. This theory has been supported by several ice cores taken in Antarctica showing the various atmospheric composition levels throughout Earth’s history.




    This is just simply not true. There are actually hundreds of known transitional species displaying a gradual change in physical adaptations. Here are just a few:

    Ambulocetus:




    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
    Ambulocetus ("walking whale") was an early cetacean that could walk as well as swim. It lived during early Eocene some 50-49 milion years ago. It is a transitional fossil that shows how whales evolved from land-living mammals.


    Did you know whales have femur bones (also known as the thigh bone)? Hmmm.


    Tiktaalik:



    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
    Tiktaalik is a genus of extinct sarcopterygian (lobe-finned) fish from the late Devonian period, with many features akin to those of tetrapods (four-legged animals).[1] It is an example from several lines of ancient sarcopterygian fish developing adaptations to the oxygen-poor shallow-water habitats of its time,[2] which led to the evolution of amphibians.


    Archaeopteryx:



    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
    The features above make Archaeopteryx the first clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds.[1][2] Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs.


    Here are even a couple of transitional species found today:

    Clarias batrachus: Walking catfish:


    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
    The walking catfish, Clarias batrachus, is a species of freshwater airbreathing catfish found primarily in Southeast Asia, so named for its ability to "walk" across dry land.

    Duck Billed Platypus:


    A mammal that lays eggs. Recent DNA sequencing of the platypus shows it to be more closely related to a reptile than a bird.

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
    The Platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus) is a semi-aquatic mammal endemic to eastern Australia, including Tasmania. Together with the four species of echidna, it is one of the five extant species of monotremes, the only mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young. It is the sole living representative of its family (Ornithorhynchidae) and genus (Ornithorhynchus), though a number of related species have been found in the fossil record.

    Must I go on?


    Stop the lies...Accept the Truth...And you shall be Free
    Stop the lies, accept the truth. I learned a lot or truths today by accident. I learned Hitler, Stalin and a few others were athiests. I have heard some of you say that athiests would not start wars if they ran the country and such.. Yet one athiest started one of the worst wars in human history.

    Stop the lies, accept the truth. I always wondered how humans could find a relic, and decide that it's millions of years old. Faulty radiation tools. Scientists " THESE BONES ARE 17. 56769697494O4736384849374859O473947383447384738365 468736384736648368463.1928374846373837654637327828 46373 YEARS OLD! "We know this because we have a perfect tool for caculating times before mankinds provable documented history, which only dates back 5000 years! Oh wait, we thought it was perfect, but it's perfect sometimes! If it says thousands, it's wrong. If it says millions, jackpot! Good work.

    Stop the lies, accept the truth. Evolutionists say it's a fact, yet when they cannot produce the evidence it leads to propaganda and "just because we don't have it does not mean it did not happen". We're still waiting on our monkey ancestors. Every 50 years someone else digs one up and the world accepts it as our ancestors! To the point of fraud this is being done. Nice.

    End of the day, you believe what you do, as do I believe what I do. But I'll leave you with this thought. Very, very shortly, the world will be in tribulation it has never seen in human history according to the bible. Only way to be protected, is by divine favor. Won't it be a sad, sad day if you're alive to see that time, and know you had a chance to gain God's favor, but chose to be like those in Noah's day who laughed at him until it actually rained, then they wanted to run and get on the ark? What is the fossil record going to do for anyone then?

    Cheers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •