Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-21-2019 1:16 AM
20 online now:
DrJones* (1 member, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,228 Year: 12,264/19,786 Month: 2,045/2,641 Week: 0/554 Day: 0/113 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
12Next
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 173 (444040)
12-27-2007 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Jason777
12-27-2007 9:17 PM


The only logical account for creation is science itself that people try to use to debunk creation.The big bang is a big dud already because if you realy think matter,time,and space could have came into existence from nonexistence then you beleive more things that arent true than anyone on earth.

But Jesus said that with God anything is possible. That would include matter, time, and space coming into existence from nonexistence. God could have done it by magic.

Are you trying to say that Jesus is a liar? That God doesn't exist?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Jason777, posted 12-27-2007 9:17 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
AshsZ
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 35
From: Edgewater, FL USA
Joined: 05-17-2008


Message 47 of 173 (469883)
06-08-2008 9:32 AM


The question you pose is really asking whether or not the origin of life occurred as an explosion of life forms or whether it followed a natural progression of material/chemical change.

No one can argue what really happened as we do not currently know for fact what really happened. The only thing we can draw on are our observations of how things work within the cosmos... from my understanding, the scientific community's "thinking" about this is that "life" came into existence through a localized cascade of events. Where the sanitized chemical interaction turned into the diverse "living" character of matter is of deeper question, but this particular step, where-ever it was or how ever many places it occurred, is that "first step" towards biological constructs. The amount of time it would require for this initial biology to change into the variation of life within your premise is likely the very component which defeats such proposal.

The origin of a bridge: it starts as the recognition for the need to build the bridge. Then the engineers design it, the laborers move the materials, and then they begin building it a piece at a time. Over time and by process, the bridge is built. The bridge doesn't just appear, nor do multiple bridges just appear.

Edited by AshsZ, : No reason given.


    
AshsZ
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 35
From: Edgewater, FL USA
Joined: 05-17-2008


Message 48 of 173 (469886)
06-08-2008 9:50 AM


2 of each animal, eh? So much for genetic diversity - bottlenecking a species down like that would likely prove fatal to the survival of the species.
    
traste
Member (Idle past 3340 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 49 of 173 (509794)
05-25-2009 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
04-12-2007 11:33 AM


Re;
1.Can you provide evidence that "various authors of the Bible include differing and mutually exclusive tales about creation"?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 04-12-2007 11:33 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Theodoric, posted 05-27-2009 12:43 PM traste has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Asgara, posted 05-27-2009 1:47 PM traste has not yet responded

    
traste
Member (Idle past 3340 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 50 of 173 (510037)
05-27-2009 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate
03-26-2007 9:12 AM


RE;You are wrong
Dr Inadequte writes:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I think intermediate forms are going to mess up any attempt to divide things into "kinds". Consider the fish-amphibian sequence. At some point you're going to have to draw a dividing line between fish and amphibians, let's say for example somewhere between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega, and announce that one is the "fish kind" and the other is the "amphibian kind". But the problem is that Tiktaalik has more in common with Acanthostega then it does with, say, a goldfish, and Acanthostega has more in common with Tiktaalik than it does with, say, a frog.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dou you have any fossil evidences that show parts of fish(internal or external)
gradualy developed into parts of amphibians (internal or external)? In general science say that fish recieve sound through thier bodies,yet amphibians like frogs and toads have eardrums.Is there any fossil fish that showed thier parts slowly become parts of the amphibians? As I see the way you express things are very lacking you are just disscussing the thoughs of those proponents of evolution.Just a friendly reminder learn to analyse the things you read,instead of digesting them directly tried ti criticized.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-26-2007 9:12 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by onifre, posted 05-27-2009 12:18 PM traste has responded
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-27-2009 4:50 PM traste has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1148 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 51 of 173 (510096)
05-27-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by traste
05-27-2009 1:20 AM


you are ignorant
Hi traste,

Is there any fossil fish that showed thier parts slowly become parts of the amphibians?

You should really pay attention to what is being said to you.

You asked if there is a fossil showing a mix of fish and amphibian qualities. You asked that in response to a post that included BOTH fossils that you were looking for, yet you ignored it and asked for it again.

Fish to Amphibian: Tiktaalik

Since you probably won't look at the link, I'm going to copy paste the whole thing for you:

quote:
Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik's 'fins' have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably were not used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creature’s body, push up fashion. The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features would have helped anchor the creature to the bottom in fast moving current.

Also notable are the spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. This would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content. This development may have led to the evolution of a more robust ribcage, a key evolutionary trait of land living creatures. The more robust ribcage of Tiktaalik would have helped support the animal’s body any time it ventured outside a fully aquatic habitat. Tiktaalik also lacked a characteristic that most fishes have - bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement. This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck. This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey either on land or in the shallows.

In Late Devonian vertebrate speciation, descendants of pelagic lobe-finned fish – like Eusthenopteron – exhibited a sequence of adaptations:

Panderichthys, suited to muddy shallows.

Tiktaalik with limb-like fins that could take it onto land.

Early tetrapods in weed-filled swamps, such as: Acanthostega which had feet with eight digits. Ichthyostega with limbs.

Descendants also included pelagic lobe-finned fish such as coelacanth species.Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Archaeopteryx is to birds. While it may be that neither is ancestor to any living animal, they serve as proof that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. The mixture of both fish and tetrapod characteristics found in Tiktaalik include these traits:

Fish:
fish gills
fish scales

"Fishapod":
half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes
half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region

Tetrapod:
tetrapod rib bones
tetrapod mobile neck
tetrapod lungs


Just a friendly reminder learn to analyse the things you read,instead of digesting them directly tried ti criticized.

Just a bit of advise, you shouldn't be so arrogant when you show such clear signs of being ignorant on this subject.

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Edited by onifre, : highlight a few points


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by traste, posted 05-27-2009 1:20 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by traste, posted 07-21-2009 4:18 AM onifre has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6403
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 52 of 173 (510098)
05-27-2009 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by traste
05-25-2009 1:47 AM


Maybe it would help if you learned things about this forum
The message your replying to is over 2 years old. It is kind of bad form to go through an old thread and try to rehash stuff. But more importantly you see the red circle with the white line next to the posters name? Means the poster is suspended. If you mouse over you will see jar is indefinitely suspended. Means jar ain't coming back. You are not going to get a reply.

Instead of just posting lame retorts how about something original. Or when you pose a question like you do, maybe a little evidence to back up your comments. I made a comment last week that I will not respond to you because you are just a troll, but I am hoping maybe by giving you a few pointers you might improve and add some substance to these debates.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by traste, posted 05-25-2009 1:47 AM traste has not yet responded

    
Asgara
Member (Idle past 500 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 53 of 173 (510099)
05-27-2009 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by traste
05-25-2009 1:47 AM


Ask the original poster?
Hi traste,

The poster you are replying to asked me to extend an invitation to ask him that question where he can answer it. He no longer belongs to this site.

Dreamcatcher


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by traste, posted 05-25-2009 1:47 AM traste has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 173 (510108)
05-27-2009 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by traste
05-27-2009 1:20 AM


Re: RE;You are wrong
Dou you have any fossil evidences that show parts of fish(internal or external) gradualy developed into parts of amphibians (internal or external)?

Obviously.

Duh.

I mentioned a couple of them in the post that you are pretending to reply to.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by traste, posted 05-27-2009 1:20 AM traste has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 3340 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 55 of 173 (515774)
07-21-2009 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Matt P
01-12-2007 10:46 PM


Re: No Oxygen for 2 billion years
Matt P wrote:

No Oxygen for 2 billion years

This idea is seriouly question today.

O2 is not stable and it is continuously replenished by photosynthesis. On planets without life, there is no O2 in the atmosphere. On Earth O2 it is believed that O2 originated as a waste product from photosynthesis. So O2 did indeed originate with the first plant-like organisms (in this case, photosynthetic bacteria

The idea that the primative atmosphere was reducing is just an assupmtion scientist are not really sure that the earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was form no direct evidence had yet been found.

Still, if we move the creation back to 2 Ga (billion years), we still have to make the O2. So maybe the first bacteria and archaea were created ~4 Ga, and then these other creatures were created 2 Ga. Other than conflicting with the fossil record (and not being the most elegant of theories), it wouldn't be that bad an idea.

This one is circular reasoning . This idea is based on that because rocks are billion years sold organism too are billion yearsold. It is like saying that some organism occured at the same timewith rocks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Matt P, posted 01-12-2007 10:46 PM Matt P has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Parasomnium, posted 07-21-2009 4:03 AM traste has responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 893 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 56 of 173 (515776)
07-21-2009 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by traste
07-21-2009 3:44 AM


Re: No Oxygen for 2 billion years
This idea is based on that because rocks are billion years sold organism too are billion yearsold

The alternative to this interpretation of the evidence is that organisms can bury themselves inside rocks. While some bacteria might be able to get inside rocks to some extend, I don't think an organism like a fish is going to manage to swim through solid rock. So, when you find a fossil fish, what is more likely, that the fish is at least as old as the rock, or that the rock is old and the fish is recent?


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by traste, posted 07-21-2009 3:44 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by traste, posted 07-21-2009 4:45 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

  
traste
Member (Idle past 3340 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 57 of 173 (515777)
07-21-2009 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by onifre
05-27-2009 12:18 PM


Re: you are ignorant
Onfire wrote:

You should really pay attention to what is being said to you.

Iam,paying that is why I was able to asked excellent question.


You asked if there is a fossil showing a mix of fish and amphibian qualities. You asked that in response to a post that included BOTH fossils that you were looking for, yet you ignored it and asked for it again

And what is your evidence the lung fish? Can you really derive amphibians(like,frogs, toads) from lung fish? Current evidence today are saying thatlungfish are just another member of fish family.

Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik's 'fins' have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably were not used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creature’s body, push up fashion. The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features would have helped anchor the creature to the bottom in fast moving current.
Also notable are the spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. This would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content. This development may have led to the evolution of a more robust ribcage, a key evolutionary trait of land living creatures. The more robust ribcage of Tiktaalik would have helped support the animal’s body any time it ventured outside a fully aquatic habitat. Tiktaalik also lacked a characteristic that most fishes have - bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement. This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck. This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey either on land or in the shallows.

In Late Devonian vertebrate speciation, descendants of pelagic lobe-finned fish – like Eusthenopteron – exhibited a sequence of adaptations:

Panderichthys, suited to muddy shallows.

Tiktaalik with limb-like fins that could take it onto land.

Early tetrapods in weed-filled swamps, such as: Acanthostega which had feet with eight digits. Ichthyostega with limbs.

Descendants also included pelagic lobe-finned fish such as coelacanth species.Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Archaeopteryx is to birds. While it may be that neither is ancestor to any living animal, they serve as proof that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. The mixture of both fish and tetrapod characteristics found in Tiktaalik include these traits:

Fish:
fish gills
fish scales

"Fishapod":
half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes
half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region

Tetrapod:
tetrapod rib bones
tetrapod mobile neck
tetrapod lungs

What a wishful speculations and boundless optimsm! Do you think your bounless optism would turned those primative fish into amphibians? You showed nothing what type of mechanism turn those things.If you only tell me that primative fish somehow become amphibians and amphibians become mammals and mammals become humans, tnat is not impresive,because you are unable to provide a basic meahanism that are responsible for there transformation,only your boundless optimsm and wishful speculations.


Just a bit of advise, you shouldn't be so arrogant when you show such clear signs of being ignorant on this subject.

Actually, Im notignorant of this subject butI guess you are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by onifre, posted 05-27-2009 12:18 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Parasomnium, posted 07-21-2009 5:08 AM traste has responded
 Message 61 by onifre, posted 07-21-2009 3:46 PM traste has responded

    
traste
Member (Idle past 3340 days)
Posts: 173
Joined: 02-09-2009


Message 58 of 173 (515780)
07-21-2009 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Parasomnium
07-21-2009 4:03 AM


Re: No Oxygen for 2 billion years
Parasomnium writes:

The alternative to this interpretation of the evidence is that organisms can bury themselves inside rocks. While some bacteria might be able to get inside rocks to some extend, I don't think an organism like a fish is going to manage to swim through solid rock. So, when you find a fossil fish, what is more likely, that the fish is at least as old as the rock, or that the rock is old and the fish is recent?

The book THE WORLD WE LIVE IN stated that"for at least three quarters of the book of age engraved inthe earth crustthe pages are blank"

The question therefore. How can we determine the ages of those organism if those first billion years are blank pages in the history? Just a reminder of my point that you failed to grasp; Im not talking of fish swimming of those rocks but Im talking of organism that as old of those rocks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Parasomnium, posted 07-21-2009 4:03 AM Parasomnium has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Brian, posted 07-21-2009 5:08 AM traste has responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 893 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 59 of 173 (515781)
07-21-2009 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by traste
07-21-2009 4:18 AM


Re: you are ignorant
If you only tell me that primative fish somehow become amphibians and amphibians become mammals and mammals become humans, tnat is not impresive,because you are unable to provide a basic meahanism that are responsible for there transformation,only your boundless optimsm and wishful speculations.

According to the theory of evolution, primitive fish evolves to modern fish by random mutation and natural selection. It has been established in molecular genetics that random mutations do not just consist of point mutations in an otherwise static volume of DNA, but also of duplication, transposition, and deletion of whole chunks of DNA, thereby enlarging or shrinking a volume of DNA to any possible size. The point is that random mutation and natural selection, in the long run, are able to change a genome of any length and composition to another genome of a completely different length and composition. This means that there is no invisible barrier beyond which lifeforms cannot evolve.

You acknowledge the existence of primitive fish (as opposed to modern fish, I suppose). So, if you think evolution is false, then what mechanism do you propose transforms primitive fish into modern fish? And why do you think this process of transformation is limited, and how is it so?

Actually, Im notignorant of this subject butI guess you are.

Mentioning the "fish family" betrays at least some ignorance with respect to biological classification, which does not bode well for your knowledge of other subjects regarding evolution. It's up to you prove me wrong.

Edited by Parasomnium, : typo


"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by traste, posted 07-21-2009 4:18 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by traste, posted 08-18-2009 11:00 PM Parasomnium has responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3156 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 60 of 173 (515782)
07-21-2009 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by traste
07-21-2009 4:45 AM


Re: No Oxygen for 2 billion years
The book THE WORLD WE LIVE IN stated that"for at least three quarters of the book of age engraved inthe earth crustthe pages are blank"

The typesetter at that publisher should be sacked.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by traste, posted 07-21-2009 4:45 AM traste has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by traste, posted 08-18-2009 11:10 PM Brian has responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019