Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do we only find fossils?
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 106 of 136 (258888)
11-11-2005 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by randman
11-11-2005 1:56 PM


Re: Other relevant Lagersttten
The fact bison grazed the North American grassland does not negate the fact other creatures grazed other grasslands.
Got it?
I don't see what you don't understand about this. Triceretops lived in the SAME AREA as ancient bison. In EQUAL NUMBERS. HUGE HERDS. Not only that, but they also shared it with MANY OTHER HERDING GRAZERS FROM THE DINOSAUR AND MAMMAL AGES. See what I'm saying? It's impossible. We are talking about MASSIVE ammounts of animals. No room to move kind of amounts.
But again, we have already agreed, different groups of creatures were around at different periods of time. This means new groups of creatures are periodically "appearing" and/or disapering. So what is the mechanism behind this?
In terms of explaining theoritical mechanisms for ID, I think we would have to get into physics and see what is physically possible, the nature of information specifically within QM and GR and physics in general, the entanglement phenomenon, etc,....
I would be glad to get into all of that.
No need really, just answer yes or no:
Do new species/groups of animals "pop" into existance periodicaly without the aid of evolution?
Ned has threatened to ban me if I discuss these issues on the BiologicalEvo forum, but perhaps it is suffice to say, I believe modern physics indicates an ID mechanism present, and one that we ourselves may be able to harness and employ as well in direct engineering of reality.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of contention about certain physics discoveries, especially once they are applied to ID.
Sounds interesting, I would love to hear about it in another thread as you said. However I am more interested in hearing your view about how new creatures come to exist.
For instance, when the mammoths appear on the earth, what put them there? They weren't there durring the dinos, evolution didn't happen, therefore something must have put them there after the dinos. So where did the mammoth come from?
This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-11-2005 02:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by randman, posted 11-11-2005 1:56 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 11-11-2005 2:22 PM Yaro has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 107 of 136 (258891)
11-11-2005 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Yaro
11-11-2005 2:15 PM


Re: Other relevant Lagersttten
What you are not getting Yaro is that different animals can occupy similar niches in different locales. So you cannot use one location to say that such and such creature did not exist anywhere else.
It's a very simple concept.
As far as mechanism for ID, I answered already. Maybe you don't realize that the term "mechanism for ID" refers to how new forms of creatures can come to being.
I will only add that no one claims some speciation does not occur via micro-evolution, speciation defined under modern terms of "species." Take some time to learn about what others think, and I would be glad to talk with you about it, as much as the mods allow.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-11-2005 02:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Yaro, posted 11-11-2005 2:15 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Yaro, posted 11-11-2005 2:30 PM randman has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 108 of 136 (258899)
11-11-2005 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by randman
11-11-2005 2:22 PM


Re: Other relevant Lagersttten
I will only add that no one claims some speciation does not occur via micro-evolution, speciation defined under modern terms of "species." Take some time to learn about what others think, and I would be glad to talk with you about it, as much as the mods allow.
No, we agreed. Mamuths didn't exist at the time of the dino and dinos didn't exist at the time of the mammuths. So who put the mammuths here?
ABE: The maxim: if we don't see it in the fossil record at a given time, it probably wasn't there.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-11-2005 02:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 11-11-2005 2:22 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by randman, posted 11-11-2005 2:34 PM Yaro has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 109 of 136 (258900)
11-11-2005 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Yaro
11-11-2005 2:30 PM


Re: Other relevant Lagersttten
You didn't see my references to an ID mechanism?
What gives Yaro?
Let me ask you this. Who put the rocks there?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Yaro, posted 11-11-2005 2:30 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Yaro, posted 11-11-2005 2:42 PM randman has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 110 of 136 (258901)
11-11-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Belfry
11-09-2005 9:33 PM


Partial fossilization
Hi Belfry,
Belfry writes:
The T-rex soft tissue find has been widely misunderstood (and misreported on some creationist websites). The soft tissue was fossilized when it was found. The minerals were then carefully removed, and the tissues were then recognizable (though much degraded; last I heard it was hopeful, but not certain, that there might still be some intact proteins to be found).
Do you know if this kind of partial fossilization is common in other groups of animals? I guess if fossilization is a slow gradual process, then there has to be a point in every fossilization event where the object is a mixture of mineral and soft tissue. I wonder how long this stage would last.
Thanks for the info.
Mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Belfry, posted 11-09-2005 9:33 PM Belfry has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 111 of 136 (258905)
11-11-2005 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by randman
11-11-2005 2:34 PM


Re: Other relevant Lagersttten
Let me ask you this. Who put the rocks there?
Personaly, I don't think anyone did. I think they just are.
For the sake of this conversation where I have accepted the following premisses:
1) Evolution is false, it does not work.
2) The world and the universe is many millions, maybe billions, of years old.
3) The fossil record indicates that there were different creatures at different periods of time. That is, the mammuths or any large mammals weren't around with the dinos, the dinos weren't around with the large mammals, and the large mammals weren't around with wierd crits in the cambrian.
I don't know, 'who' if there even was a 'who', put the rocks there.
However, it seems to me, that your ID mechanism is proposing that mammuths, humans, and all other creaturs, spontaneusly appeard fully formed on earth due to the mechanations of an inteligent designer.
Every few million years, after the old animals "run out", this designer creates a whole bunch of new and different animals and lets them loose on the planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by randman, posted 11-11-2005 2:34 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by randman, posted 11-11-2005 2:53 PM Yaro has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 112 of 136 (258909)
11-11-2005 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Yaro
11-11-2005 2:42 PM


Re: Other relevant Lagersttten
It's a little more complicated than that. I think QM basically confirms ID because it shows consciousness is required for physical things to exist in any one state. THe QM interpretation I am following here is John Wheeler's and Anton Zellinger's as well as others'.
To explain the mechanism would entail a physics thread, and of course, not all physicists agree, but when you realize everything essentially "Poofs" into existence every moment from it's probability state/energy information pattern, then it's easier to get past disbelief based on classical concepts of physical reality.
Moreover, I also question the assumptions we use in interpretating data, specifically the assumption of a static past or static time-line. I think, more and more, we will see that the past is not unchanging and perhaps the present consists of several or many different "pasts" melded together, and so the evidence can be confusing without understanding better how reality is constructed.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-11-2005 02:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Yaro, posted 11-11-2005 2:42 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Yaro, posted 11-11-2005 2:57 PM randman has replied
 Message 115 by AdminNWR, posted 11-11-2005 2:59 PM randman has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 113 of 136 (258912)
11-11-2005 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by randman
11-11-2005 2:53 PM


Re: Other relevant Lagersttten
So, are you saying that we could potentialy whitness a "poof"?
So it's theoreticaly possible that suddenly a herd of Bantha will appear in central park?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by randman, posted 11-11-2005 2:53 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by randman, posted 11-11-2005 2:59 PM Yaro has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 114 of 136 (258913)
11-11-2005 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Yaro
11-11-2005 2:57 PM


Re: Other relevant Lagersttten
Yaro, no I am saying we always only witness "poofs." Poofs are basic to what consitutes physical reality. Understanding that helps to understand how any of the following can be possible:
1. Species could evolve via an intelligent force causing the changes to occur much faster than what is called "natural means" via random mutation and selection; super-evolution via ID.
2. Species could appear from other multi-verses.
3. Species could appear, poof, into the earth created by an Intelligent Designer.
4. The universe itself, containing both subluminal and superluminal structures, could have built-in mechanisms for manifesting new species besides biological evolution.
Any of all of the above.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-11-2005 03:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Yaro, posted 11-11-2005 2:57 PM Yaro has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 136 (258914)
11-11-2005 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by randman
11-11-2005 2:53 PM


Re: Other relevant Lagersttten
I think QM basically confirms ID because it shows consciousness is required for physical things to exist in any one state.
That's way off topic for this thread. Please try to stay on topic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by randman, posted 11-11-2005 2:53 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by randman, posted 11-11-2005 3:05 PM AdminNWR has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 116 of 136 (258916)
11-11-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by AdminNWR
11-11-2005 2:59 PM


Re: Other relevant Lagersttten
OK.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by AdminNWR, posted 11-11-2005 2:59 PM AdminNWR has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 117 of 136 (258993)
11-11-2005 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by randman
11-11-2005 2:09 PM


Re: Other relevant Lagersttten
To everyone,
Just to clarify:
randman writes:
Basically, Ned said he would ban me, and I've been banned before. So unfortunately, the topic is more or less off-limits for the EVC.
There is no Creation/Evolution topic that is off-limits for EvC Forum.
We do, of course, ask that topics be discussed in the proper forum.
Randman's posting privileges were suspended for persistent unwillingness to follow the Forum Guidelines and moderator suggestions.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 11-11-2005 2:09 PM randman has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 118 of 136 (259333)
11-13-2005 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Yaro
11-10-2005 9:54 PM


Re: Other relevant Lagersttten
If your gonna say all the animals coexisted at one point you are going to have to expline how HUGE groups of bison and HUGE groups of triceretops didn't eat the landscape dry.
I do agree that you have made a strong case for the absurdity of the YEC position.

said by a creationist: I am saying we always only witness "poofs." Poofs are basic to what consitutes physical reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Yaro, posted 11-10-2005 9:54 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 119 of 136 (259345)
11-13-2005 1:25 PM


General Problems with ID and "poofing"
I. Why are there so many different animals?
Nature exhibits a great 'waste' of life. Crabs, fish, octupus, for example have thousands upon thousands of young every season only to have just a handfull actually survive to adulthood. It seems natures solution to just about any problem is "throw more life at it and hope it sticks."
One would think that if an ID existed it could have come up with a more perfect, efficient, set of creatures that would fullfill the required ecosystemic niches. Instead we have a world were species go extinct periodicaly, waste resources, and are just plain badly made.
This makes alot of extra work for the ID since it has to create all new creatures all the darn time (by his/her/its standards).
If an ID existed, and it was perfect and omnicient, he ain't to good at world building.
II. Why do animals LOOK related?
Why would a designier create animals that look alike? Why have 7000 varieties of rodent, or 4million varieties of insect, etc.
Couldn't the designer have created a perfect representation of each? Heck, why create groups of creatures at all?
This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-13-2005 01:25 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by arachnophilia, posted 11-13-2005 9:22 PM Yaro has not replied
 Message 121 by randman, posted 11-13-2005 11:09 PM Yaro has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 120 of 136 (259448)
11-13-2005 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Yaro
11-13-2005 1:25 PM


Re: General Problems with ID and "poofing"
Nature exhibits a great 'waste' of life.
yeah, look at me, sitting here eating crackers.
Why would a designier create animals that look alike?
laziness and a general lack of creativity. see above.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Yaro, posted 11-13-2005 1:25 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024