|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution vs Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, as usual, I have to slow things down a bit for Fred. Okay, try this: What Mark said did NOT indicate that 'evolution accomodates everything,' as you somehow interpreted it. He said, I believe, that evolution explains the entire fossil record. That is hardly 'everything.' This is a simple propaganda tactic on your part and really adds nothing to the discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7576 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
[B][QUOTE]Of course I have, and it as bogus now as it was last time you are some other fairytale lover brought it up. It’s a toothless test, because such a discovery would be extremely unlikely. Take another look at the pie chart in my article. Mammalian fossils constitute a miniscule sliver of the fossil record. They are very rare, and most are represented by a bone or less. When one is found, the odds of it being buried with marine invertebrates is astronomically low. But feel free to go ahead and pound your fist that this is a test of evolution![/B][/QUOTE]
So you can point us to examples of modern marine vertebrates found in undisturbed cambrian deposits - or is there some mechanism which ensures that marine vertebrates and invertebates are sorted in the fossil record? Similarly for plants - primitive plants and trees frequently grow on high and dry ground along with recently evolved forms including flowering plants and grasses. Modern forms are found in low lying swampy areas. Yet the fossil record demontrates remarkably clear sorting - no modern forms, no flowering plants found out of sequence. I'm not talking pollen here (before you are tempted by that spurious line) but fossil evidence of the bodies of flowering plants, grasses and modern trees. How utterly ubiquitous they are in the ecology of the world! How absent they are from the early fossil record!
[B][QUOTE]BTW, when plausible examples of out-of-sequence fossils are discovered, they are explained away.[/B][/QUOTE] Plausible to you perhaps. Explained as frauds, misinterpretations and poor fieldwork, mostly. Anyway, why must you rely on "plausible" for your story? Let's see some "incontrovertible."
[B][QUOTE]So even by some incredible stroke of luck a mammallian fossil was found buried with marine invertebrates, evolutionists would invoke a just-so story of how it got there.[/B][/QUOTE] As you say, if it was incredible it would not be given credibility: it kinda follows from the definition, doesn't it? Funny how language works that way.[B][QUOTE]I already have many evolutionists admit that finding living dinosaurs would not falsify evolution for them.[/B][/QUOTE] I should hope so too. A living dinosaur would provide a revised terminus post quem for dinosaur extinction. A mammal fossil in the Cambrian would provide a terminus ante quem for mammal development. As evolution is concerned primarily with the appearance of new forms (the "origin" of species, remember?) then the latter is much more significant.
[B][QUOTE]You guys have a countless number of escape hatches. A theory with more escape hatches than evidence is really no better than a low-grade hypothesis.[/B][/QUOTE] So your theory is presumably worse still and completely worthless, as creation by an omnipotent, omniscient being can explain any and all conceivable realities. Thanks again for the confirmation that your theory is not worth considering for this reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fedmahn Kassad Inactive Member |
quote: Your posts are becoming increasingly irrational. Does not the Christian story of creation state that man was created from the dust of the earth? If so, then you ARE "totally confident your distant ancestor IS a piece of clod off your shoe". Have you seen the movie "A Beautiful Mind"? Not that I think you have one, but watching this might be instructive for the rest of your family. I recommend it. FK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
A few more points regarding Fred's latest post.
quote: Yep, there's a reason for that.
quote: It is also a miniscule part of the record that must be explained. Or would you rather ignore it?
quote: Yep, there's a reason for that, too. They are not credible finds.
quote: Well, let's see... It couldn't be that the theory of evolution is correct, could it? Seems to me that any theory that contradicts yours is, by definition, wrong. Is that what you call science?
quote: No, it could be that they were buried as they died in water and were buried by normal sedimentary processes. How does you data refute this possibility?
quote: Well, they must be wrong.
quote: Not at all. As your floundering on the issues shows us, creationism cannot explain the fossil record. You have made our point quite well, thank you.
quote: So, since mudflows eroded steep canyons in soft pyroclastics, you think that this proves all canyons were cut in the same way? Please, Fred, learn a little geology before you embarass yourself further.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Fred, I am not sure why you - of all people - are 'loling' this. You were asked probably dozens of times MORE THAN A YEAR AGO to provide citations - even one! - that supported your creationism fairy tale regarding "non-random mutation". Your pitiful excuse then was that you were working on some sort of 'article' and didn't want to give away your best points, or some such nonsense. Now, more than a year later - No article, no citations. I wonder who should be doing the "LOLing"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4855 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Mark, like all evolutionists, mold their theory to fit the evidence. Evolution clearly and undeniably predicted gradualism in the fossil record, and this prediction failed miserably. One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong. — Eldredge & Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p45-46 So instead of questioning their dearly held theory, evolutionists instead invoked a just-so story to accommodate it (punk ek). The theory is a smorgasborg where testability is clandestinely hung out to dry.
quote: I don’t’ think John was asking for the Ohno paper, but instead a reference supporting a 3 million year Cambrian. Here is mine: Chinese National Geography 467 ( Sept 1999): 6-25.
quote: Strawman. Rare does not mean few. There are some 500,000 1909 S VDB pennies, yet they are very rare, particularly in comparison to other lincoln cents in that era. There are plenty of good fossils of mammals and dinosaurs, but they are few and far between, and when one is found the odds of it being buried in a fossil bed with marine creatures is extremely unlikely.
quote: Based on numbers today, I would imagine so. I’m surprised you ask this. Mammals are vastly outnumbered by marine life. It is also reasonable to assume that the vast majority of both groups probably did not fossilize. As an illustration of this point, assume 1 trillion mammals, and 1 million times more marine invertebrates. If say .001% fossilize, that leaves just 10 million mammal fossils scattered all over the face of the earth (most of which will never be discovered), compared to 10 trillion marine invertebrates. To find any fossil is still fairly rare, unless you already know where to look. If you find one, odds are overwhelming it’s a marine invertebrate. If you find a vertebrate, the odds of that same location bearing an invertebrate is remarkably low. That is why your test is bogus. Even if creation were true, we would not expect to ever make such a discovery, in a million years (let alone 6000 ).
quote: They did leave a record, they were called dragons. The word dinosaur, as I’m sure you know, was not even invented until the 1830s: The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past .They are much like the great reptiles which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth."Lindall, Carl, "Dragon," World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 5 (1996), pp. 265-266. quote: TB did a fine job defending reality. As to my butt, I prevailed quite well, thank you. You guys love to hoot and holler and slap each other on the back, toast your success, giving the rouse that you kicked butt. LOL! I’m sure Joe Pesci’s character thought the same thing in the closing scene of ‘Casino’. But I disgress. Most of the posted rebuttals in the above thread were already dealt with in my article. You guys are too predictable. Snippets from your post from another thread you linked to:
quote: This is insoluble? Are you serious? Single point mutations have been known to cause blindness in bats. In a relatively short period of time (given a small starting population, ie founder population), the entire mole population could easily become blind. When the rabbit was introduced to Australia, it took less than 50 years for the entire continent to become overrun! (now they’re a serious pest problem there).
quote: Hmm, in the early 90s three fossil Platypus teeth were found in Argentina. Surely, if rabbits can overrun the entire continent of Australia in 50 years, other animals can reach Australia in say, 400 years? How about 1000 to be safe? Yet you deem this as insoluble. It’s not only soluble, its quite plausible for marsupials, even "slow" ones, to make it there in 1000 years.
quote: Placental mammals may have been there, but just did not take hold in the ecosystems. The continent did eventually become isolated. Thus, you had lots of founder populations, many of which probably died off. Why are there no fossils? The flood had already occurred! Doh! Very little fossilization goes on now. Bison are virtually extinct in the US, but you don’t find fossils of them lying around. This is all I have time for now. This was supposed to be your powerful evidence against rapid diversification? Nice try! PS. I see you reside in Cincinnati? Hopefully when AIG finishes their museum you can become tour guide.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4855 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: This is not true and a clear misrepresentation. I was asked far more than dozens of times. I have now been asked this by you 536 times. Dozens would be around 24-36, 48 tops. You're an order of magnitude off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4855 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Dearest nausiating482, Please lose the evo-handbook with the "how to answer a cretionist" parrot phrases. We are interested in debate here, not evo-babble rhetoric from T.O. hacks. Please advise your pal Fedmahn to do the same. Thanks! Your pal,Fred
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fred Williams Member (Idle past 4855 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
quote: Same way, every time? Now did I say that? No. Regardless, Mt St Helens showed canyon carving can be done in hours, not millions of years. Heck, there's even a little creek runnin' down that valley. A miniature grand canyon, cooked up in the matter of hours. Mt St Helens was also the reason evolutionists now admit the so-called fossilized forest in Yellowstone was not the result of millions of years of forests buried on top of each other, but instead a single event from a flood that transported them there some time in the past. To the credit of the Yellowstone Park crew, the sign that misled people for years of how this forest got there is now long gone. Evolutionists are now starting to come around regarding the Grand Canyon. I’m curious Edge. Are you one of those stubborn geologists who still insist that the Colorado river did the carving over millions of years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fedmahn Kassad Inactive Member |
quote: So then do you acknowledge that your ark landed 60 million years ago (message 21) and that your distant ancestor was dirt as your holy book clearly states (message 33)? Or would you rather admit that you are guilty of using faulty arguments? I also see that you are invoking dragons as proof of dinosaurs. I do believe that you may be losing your grip on reality. FK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Dearest nos482, Please lose the evo-handbook with the "how to answer a cretionist" parrot phrases. We are interested in debate here, not evo-babble rhetoric from T.O. hacks. Please advise your pal Fedmahn to do the same. Thanks! You're the one who is working from a set text since you can't come up with an original "idea" which hasn't already been refuted a million times over already. BTW, the Earth is a sphere as well. Maybe you should leave it and see for yourself. Though, you still probably won't believe it since the bible says that it is flat. (No matter how high you go you can't see all of the Earth at once.) What, you tring to be a master debater? Much of what I had wrote I had learn from many other sources other than Talk.Origins and on differing topics. [This message has been edited by nos482, 09-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Fedmahn Kassad:
So then do you acknowledge that your ark landed 60 million years ago (message 21) and that your distant ancestor was dirt as your holy book clearly states (message 33)? Or would you rather admit that you are guilty of using faulty arguments? I also see that you are invoking dragons as proof of dinosaurs. I do believe that you may be losing your grip on reality. FK How could he lose something which he never truly had to begin with?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: So then, you agree that some canyons may take 'millions of years,' or at least a very long time? If not, then what are you saying?
quote: NOw, which geologists are these? You mean Steve Austin? Or is that Stuart Nevins? Or both?
quote: I'm not aware of a sign.
quote: Probably. I'm not sure of the length of time, but it was certainly more than 4000 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1706 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Fred: I think you meant to say, "...how to answer a cretionist parroted phrase."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
Fred your attempted rebuttal of the biogeography problem is typical of many such creationist efforts. You make up fantasies, which fail to explain even the small part you do address while leaving the whole untouched.
quote: Even if it had sight it was still a mole like animal. How did a mole migrate from the Middle East to Australia? Did a single point mutation cause it to loose those long legs it used to have? Did another cause it to develop those digging claws from fins that helped it swim the ocean or maybe they were wings? There are 180 unique species of marsupial in Australia, New Guinea and New Zealand not to mention the ratite birds and monotreme mammals. Are you going to make up a similar fantasy for each one? How did the kangaroos get there? Oh I know! They island hopped? I bet you think koalas used to be great runners who ate everything in site and only developed their specialization for Eucalyptus trees post flood. Gila monsters used to have long furry coats that helped them cross the ice age land bridge to the Americas and lost them by a point mutations after they got to the desert Southwest. Tree sloths that can only survive in the tropics and can only drag themselves along the ground hyper-evolved from fast moving ground dwellers in a few thousand years post flood. Meanwhile lions and tigers and wildebeest and cheetahs and gazelles were slow moving animals that could only get as far as Africa or Asia and then hyper-evolved their speed and mobility after the continents separated. Maybe you think marsupial moles, spiny anteaters and Koalas migrated to Australia while wildebeest, gazelles, deer, elk, wovles and buffalo didn’t because the marsupials used to move fast and the placentals used to move slow. Tree kangaroos made it somehow but monkeys could not. Oh I forgot, the kangaroos island hopped. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------The Kiwi, a flightless bird and the only monotremes (egg laying mammals) in world, the platypus and 2 species of echidna are found in the area and nowhere else. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Further, how did any flightless birds come off the ark and get anywhere among all those hungry predators? Oh I know they had wings. But wait! There is a fossil record of ratite birds in Australia and New Zealand. I know. Some of them hyper-evolved wings in a few years, flew over to meet Noah and ride the ark, flew back and lost their wings to look just like their fossil relatives. That sounds like good creation science.
quote: No three teeth of an ancestor of the platypus were found in Argentina. Not at all surprising since Australia, South America and Antarctica were connected before the breakup of Gondwanaland. You are aware that the modern platypus has only vestigal teeth and the adult has no teeth aren't you? Or did AiG forget to tell you that?
quote: Surely? Surely a mole like animal that only lives in sand could cross all of Asia and get to Australia in 1000 years?? As usual your explanation is pretty silly. Why didn’t rabbits make it in the first place? They did pretty well once they got there. And in case you didn’t notice rabbits move a lot faster than mole like animals that travel by burrowing through the ground. There is deep water around Australia and even AiG doesn’t buy that continent break up in the time of Peleg nonsense. I wonder why the marsupial moles headed for Australia and the placental moles went all around the world except to Australia and New Zealand. Those placental moles moved out pretty good to get all over the world in a few thousand years. Not bad for blind animals that travel by digging through the ground. Oh I forgot. They were also sighted, lived above ground and were fast moving right after the flood. They just hyper-evolved to become the mole kind in a few thousand years since then.
quote: But there are fossils of marsupials found in Australia and the fossils of living Australian marsupials are found nowhere else. Why did the marsupials just happen to go back where they came from and where no placental mammals lived before the flood? BTW do you think all fossils are from the flood? Does that mean that any deposits containing fossils are not post flood deposits? When placental mammals and marsupial come into contact the marsupials usually come out second best. The closing of the land bridge between North and South America led to mass extinction of marsupials, which were the dominant species in South America before the bridge closed. The only exception was the possum who moved north and does quite well. I wonder why the prolific possum never left any descendants in Europe, Africa or Asia if they came of the Ark in Turkey and somehow migrated to America. But now you say it just happened that conditions were better for marsupials in Australia and New Zealand where they just happen to have a fossil record. I guess the flood that rearranged all the world’s geology didn’t change that and somehow the marsupials knew to head back there immediately post flood. BTW what ecological conditions do you think would favor all those diverse marsupials and momotremes over placental mammals? This is just another Fairytale Fred Fantasy. Of course there could not have been a recent land bridge to Australia. I was just pointing out that the fantasy about post flood continent separation doesn’t help. Or maybe marsupials just happen to be the only ones to swim over from Indonesia? Or maybe they waded. The water is only about 1300 meters deep. Oh I forgot. The kangaroos island hopped. As to Bison fossils bone collectors collected bison bones for their phosphate and pretty much scoured the plains clean of them. Of course there are bison fossils in any museum that focuses on ice age mammals. I guess there weren’t millions of bison roaming the plain before the flood though since no bison fossils are found deposited with the dinosaurs bones that were supposedly deposited by the flood in Montana. I suppose AiG will eventually fool enough people into donating money for their absurd musem and no doubt they have enough nonsense to fill it up. See you then . Randy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024