Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Living fossils expose evolution
Tanndarr
Member (Idle past 5182 days)
Posts: 68
Joined: 02-14-2008


(1)
Message 286 of 416 (527614)
10-01-2009 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 5:22 PM


Classifications
All scientific classification systems are based on the consensus opinion of experts. Yes, that means that the decision that a particular relationship is at say the genus or family level is not based on rock-solid rules. This is not a secret nor is it a weakness to the classification systems or the scientific method. The system is a tool that helps scientists describe their subjects and there is no expectation that life must respect taxonomic lines. New knowledge may require reclassification or the creation of a whole new clade.
But the biblical system of kinds must have these uncrossable boundaries to support the whole concept of "adaptation within kinds". If such boundaries really exist then scientists should see evidence of them in their studies. To date they have not, which leaves a huge gap for creation scientists to fill.
A final note, evolution is not just change but change over time. It works with existing genetic material, modifies it and filters it gradually; over time creatures are modified more and more until someone basically just decides that the creature has evolved enough to be a new species. I believe the concept is referred to as chronospecies which basically means that say an early H. sapiens may not be able to breed with modern man...or they may, we just don't know. For that matter we may be able to breed with H. neanderthalensis (which we'll probably never know) which would indicate that they are part of our species (or visa-versa).
As organisms change, they do not bounce back and forth between different branches of the evolutionary bush. We don't expect to ever see a plant give birth to an animal, a chordate to give birth to a mollusc or a crocoduck. Creationists tend to imply that evolution requires such hopeful monsters. So a fruit fly remaining a fruit fly is pretty much what we expect...it may become a very different fruit fly given enough time but it should always maintain a significant portion of the fruit fly's distinguishing features. Dinosaur-bird evolution is a good example, there is no set of identification features that will identify therapod dinosaurs that will not include birds...birds are dinosaurs and birds.
What you show us is exactly the sort of thing we expect to see in evolution because each one of your examples (including the bat Admin (see I'm on topic)) shows differences. You can say that they are insignificant but that doesn't matter...they are different and they got to be different because of descent with modification. Or else maybe God poofed them into existence; tell me, does the bible explain why we need 350,000 different types of beetle but only one John Lennon?
Edited by Tanndarr, : Because I can't spell taxonomic right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 5:22 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 12:14 PM Tanndarr has replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 287 of 416 (527638)
10-02-2009 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 7:54 AM


Re: Atomic bombs?
Why, at this point of the debate would this be in question?
It is still in question simply because you have not explained the importance of living fossils as a proof against evolution. It has been explained to you that it was Darwin himself who first brought up living fossils and to this day they do not present a problem for evolution as they are predicted and necessary for evolution. Not all animals evolve at the same rate and so if there was a complete absence of living fossils I would expect that would call evolution into question much more than a few hundred examples of their existence.
This hardly seems to be an atomic bomb on evolution. There are plenty of ways that evolution could be found to be false, this is not one of them. Though you have stated that it should be obvious I am at a loss to understand how, and apparently so is everyone else. Perhaps you have simply mistaken what should and should not be the results of evolution? If Darwin suggested that living fossils should exist, all biologists suggest they should exist, and you have not provided a reason why they should not exist; is it not more likely you have misunderstood the concept?
The fossil organisms that I have posted in comparison with their living offspring, although not always the same species are certainly within the same family and they reveal no change. One can easily recognize almost all of them by appearance alone.
There are examples that you have posted however that others have pointed out to you are not in the same family. If that is the classification system that you choose to use in support of your argument I think it dishonest to discount those that are not in agreement with your argument. The common approach in honest discourse is to provide a reasonable and detailed reason why you disagree with the classification system in regards to that particular example.
Though I agree that the examples you provide can be recognized often by mere appearance, mere appearance is not the only method of classification in biology. To suggest that this is the correct method means that you disagree with current classification methods without providing a reasonable explanation why. This also begs the question of why you would choose this system as a means to support your argument.
If evolution were true then why are there so many hundreds of examples of the non-evolution of the species while there is virtually nothing in the fossil record to establish the changes between those organisms?
There should be hundreds of examples of so called 'non-evolution' as you have described it. They are all fine examples of living fossils, as predicted by evolution, and I am sure that all participants in this thread could provide many more examples for you. The question that keeps coming up however is why you think this supports your argument.
The problem with your claim of 'nothing in the fossil record to establish the changes between those organisms' is that first the statement is so poorly worded I wonder if you realize the humor. Your whole argument is based upon a lack of change in these organisms so it seems obvious that there would be nothing in the fossil record to establish a change in these organisms that even you claim did not take place. If however you meant to say there is nothing in the fossil record to establish changes between any organisms then you are making a dishonest attempt to have others post examples when it is quite obviously off topic. There are threads for such a request, or you could certainly make your own.
The few examples that my opponents have posted are both pitiful and highly suspect at best.
There are many more examples and it would be interesting to see you attempt to prove their authenticity to be suspect.
None of us who converted from evolution take those examples seriously any longer because we learned in our studies the details of those discoveries and how the facts have been manipulated to fit the theory.
Manipulation of facts is fraudulent and there is just such a thread active on the forum right now. You could be the first to provide an actual example.
I hope this answers it. Have a nice day.
No, not really. Thank you and have a nice day also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 7:54 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:56 AM Vacate has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 288 of 416 (527657)
10-02-2009 1:53 AM


You have failed to make any kind of case
Calypsis4, you have indeed completely and utterly failed to make any kind of case. We have all witnessed that. Now, I have been involved in creation/evolution for about 30 years, so I know that creationists do not want to make any kind of case; they only want to attack evolution and to deceive others into converting. Yes, I know that you most likely do not realize that you are employing lies and deception in your effort to proselytize, but you are indeed employing such methods. I have long had severe reservations about what Christian doctrine says about the role of lies and deception being used in the service of God, but the Christians I have asked have abjectly refused to provide an answer other than a "nothing is higher than the truth", but that was from a local creationist who not only had proven to be a pathological liar, but who has knowingly posted lies on his creationist webpage.
Calypsis4, you have indicated that you have been a creationist for about 40 years, which dates you back around the 1970, around the time that the ICR had invented "creation science". That is also around the time that I had first encountered "creation science", since I was a "fellow traveller" of a number of friends who had converted to fundamentalism as part of the "Jesus Freak" movement (their own name for it). About 7 years prior, I had left Christianity because I had started to read the Bible and found it so utterly incredible that, since I could not believe what I was reading, I could not be a Christian -- true, I was applying a navely literalist interpretation, but even though it was for the wrong reasons at least I had made the right decision by having become an atheist; though the object lesson is that you should never leave a child alone with a Bible. As a "fellow traveller", I learned a lot about fundamentalist theology and I had very serious problems with a lot of their theology, problems which are only worse as I have learned more.
Well, back when you had converted, I also encountered creationism for the first time. Mainly through vague claims that geologic evidence supporting Noah's Flood (which have since then all proven to be completely and utterly false) and through two very specific claims:
1. Living clams were radio-dated as being thousands of years old.
2. A NASA computer tracking the moon's orbit through history abruptly stopped about 6,000 years ago and announced that nothing existed before then.
It was that second one that, even though hardly anybody in the general public knew anything about computers back then, I immediately could see as being a complete and utter and absolutely blatant lie. The other claims I just rejected out of hand as ludicrous, though I must admit that I did not check them out at the time (though I did check them out later and, yes, they are lies).
A decade later when I was stationed in North Dakota, a creationist from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) gave a presentation at the local university (Gish, I believe it was). Having duty that night, I could not attend, but the very fact that they were still around and kicking a decade later told me that maybe they really did have a valid point. So I started studying "creation science." And found it to be a complete and utter lie. The first time I saw creationists in action was on a CBN show around 1980/1981; as I later described it to a creationist:
quote:
I first saw creationists in action one night in 1982 on CBN. A Tennessean host would run various debates (I believe it was David Ankerberg). This particular night, a creationist was debating a scientist (kind of looked like Drs. Morris and Awbrey, though I cannot be sure since I didn't know of either of them at the time). I remember that the scientist showed several slides of hominid fossils, such as knee joints (to show evidence of developing bi-pedalism). Then he showed slides of a human pelvis and chimpanzee pelvis side-by-side. First from the side, then from the top, he pointed out two sets of characteristics that clearly distinguish the one from the other (i.e. whether viewed from the side or from the top, the pelvis could be positively identified as human or chimpanzee). Next he showed both views of a hominid pelvis. From one view it was definitely ape, from the other it was definitely human; thus demonstrating it to be a intermediate form. The creationist then proclaimed the hominid pelvis to be 100% ape and not the least bit human by completely ignoring the human characteristic (even when reminded of it repeatedly by his opponent) and concentrating solely on the view that displayed the ape characteristic. Of course, the host declared this to be a creationist victory and threw in the standard gross misinterpretation of punctuated equilibrium for good [?] measure.
This event made a lasting impression on me. The creationist's steadfast ignoring of the blatantly obvious evidence that was repeatedly pointed out to him is a selective blindness that I have found to pervade much of the creationist literature.
In this thread, I watched you doing basically the same thing as that creationist had done.
OK, Calypsis4, it's time to explain to you how the cow ate the cabbage (a Texas-ism that my father used all the time, much to the confusion of my older son; it basically means that I'm going to give you the unvarnished truth, whether you want to hear it or not). You want to disprove evolution? Well, you need to know everything you possibly can about evolution. You want to disprove any other branch of science? Well, you need to know everything you possibly can about those branches of science. So far, you have demonstrated abject ignorance of those subjects, even though you claim to have taught those subject.
OK, I'm going to quote some Scripture to you right now. You're not going to like it, in part because it's not your own personal choice of Scripture:
quote:

Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):


  1. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
  2. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
  3. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."


(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)

Do you know the enemy? No, obviously not. Do you know yourself? Also, obviously not. You are therefore most certainly to be in peril. Sorry, but it was your choice.
You became a creationist forty years ago! Hello? What did you do during those 40 years? Nothing! Shouldn't you have been learning everything about evolution that you possibly could? Well, why didn't you? You should have been learning everything you possibly could about geology, and about astronomy, and about physics, etc. Well, why didn't you? Hello??? You say you were a science teacher for most of that time, so you had all kinds of motivation to learn everything you could. So why didn't you??? You have completely wasted those 40 years of your life!
PS
A lot of the "evolutionists" here (an over-loaded creationist term that they use to lie with) used to be creationists. Until they started checking out and verifying the claims. You should listen to them, for they have learned the truth.
PPS
My first discussions were on CompuServe, where I met my first honest creationist, Merle Hertzler. Within a year, he was on the evolution side. He has something interesting to say about the fossil record:
quote:
I also "met" Merle Hertzler online on CompuServe in 1993-94. He is a former fundamentalist and ex-Christian. In 1993, he argued on CompuServe for young-earth creationism and was one of its better, more coherent advocates. But he found that position indefensible and within a year went over to the side of evolution. From his web site (No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve2.html; my emphasis added):
quote:
I argued in the CompuServe debate forum, basing my arguments on Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crises. My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.
An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould's Ten Little Piggies . I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children's book, I should be able to find that book. (I thought I was so funny). I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals' ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How could Gould believe it? Perhaps he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, "Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38." That's it. That's all it said. But it was soon to have a huge impact on me. You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to the University of Pennsylvania library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn't believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously, but, before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.
On my next trip to the university, I found my way to the biomedical library and located the journal archives. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.
. . .
The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn't know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free. I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation--diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution. And I was surprised at the answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. And I was surprised to see all the clear, logical arguments for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much more.
I would never see the world in the same light. Several weeks later I found myself staring at the fossil of a large dinosaur in a museum. I stared with amazement. I looked at the details of every bone in the back. And I wondered if a design so marvelous could really have evolved. But I knew that someone could show me another animal that had lived earlier and was a likely predecessor of this dinosaur that I was observing. And I knew that one could trace bones back through the fossil record to illustrate the path through which this creature had evolved. I stared and I pondered. And then I pondered some more.
Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and speak less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the origin of life issue. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a Creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.
(No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve2.html)

You wanted to see those fossils? Well, now you know where to go to see them. Of course, you won't, because creationists have a vested interest in keeping themselves ignorant of the facts. Ignorance equals "God", right?
Years after I had become an atheist, I read the entire New Testament, twice. The Gospels were interesting and felt good (this expressed having learned about Rabbinic literature, eg the Talmud). Acts was kind of questionable. The rest felt too depressingly Paulist, expressing a religion about the Christ instead of about the religion of Jesus. The imagery of the Mysteries was especially apparent in Jesus' parables. The teachings were meant to be indecipherible by the uninitiated, so Jesus preached in symbolism that was unintelligible to the uninitiated, though he deliberately initiated his disciplines. What was the device he invoked? "Let those with ears hear, those with eyes see." Do you have the ears to hear? The eyes to see? Are you that sure? When the truth is involved, are you really that sure that you have the eyes and ears?
With all due respect. If I were to be put on the spot to become a Christian, I truthfully could not. Because to become a Christian, I would need to embrace a complete and utter lie as being true. And I simply cannot do that. I have studied "creation science" for the past 30 years. It is a complete and utter lie. And to become a Christian I need to embrace that blatant lie?
You came here to convert us? Well, it's not going to happen. We are very familiar with the shoddy substandard snake oil you're trying to peddle; several of us used to feed on it regularly, having been creationists until they finally learned how their creationist handlers had been lying to them all along. The only ones here who are going to buy any of your snake oil are the other snake oil peddlers.
If there is any part of that that you do not understand, then do please express the appropriate explicit questions.
In the meantime, you got a lotta learning to do, boy!
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : slight clean-up

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 289 of 416 (527658)
10-02-2009 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 5:22 PM


quote:
My, what a brave thing to say for a person who just stepped in to the tail end of this debate.
Actually I've read every single post in this thread. What I've seen is you posting a picture, avoiding having to deal with commentary on it from anyone here (including some who do this stuff for a living), insisting you are right regardless, and then posting another picture -- in other words, doing the "Gish Gallop." When Percy stopped you, you said you were leaving the thread. Since you've decided to stay, why not start defending why you say the bat is devastating for evolution.
quote:
Never mind the fact that I have spent almost every waking moment of the last three days typing as fast as I could to answer questions.
I don't think anyone wants quick posts with little or no substance, which is usually the result of the above. Most people seem to be posting because they are asking you over and over to defend statements you've made that have no evidence to support them, or to reply to their rebuttals. We'd actually like you to take your time and do so.
quote:
My opponents expect me to treat the Linneaus classification system and my position on 'kind' as if it were the infallible scriptures of God. It isn't.
No, they are working with the ground rules that you yourself defined in Message 20:
quote:
Every creationist that I personally know of says that 'kind' is on the 'family' level.
Now we're seeing what we usually see when asking a creationist to define what a "kind" is. When you get yourself into a pickle, i.e. when you've been informed that some of the pictures you posted show organisms that have undergone so much change that they're not in the same family, you want to shift the goalposts. The problem is, you're not going to find any legitimate type of classification that suits your purposes because you will always find some organisms that have made huge evolutionary changes and others that have not, and none of this runs counter to the ToE.
(added in edit)
By the way, don't feel obliged to reply to this post. While I've been typing, some others have made some good points (see above) and I think your time would be well spent in addressing their specific questions, as well as other outstanding ones from earlier in the thread.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 5:22 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by dwise1, posted 10-02-2009 2:48 AM Kitsune has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 290 of 416 (527660)
10-02-2009 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Kitsune
10-02-2009 2:22 AM


IOW, Calypsis4, the creationist position is indefensible.
Do please make some kind of effort to defend your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Kitsune, posted 10-02-2009 2:22 AM Kitsune has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 291 of 416 (527661)
10-02-2009 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 5:24 PM


Calypsis fails to respond substantively....
Calyspsis,
Another brave statement. You would say that if I remained here for another week.
Another post where you refuse to deal with your arguments illogic, so there's nothing brave about my statement, Calypsis. You simply can't defend your argument, so you don't. You do what every creationist does & stick your fingers in your ears & clamp your eyes shut tight, just pretending you haven't committed a logical fallacy despite being shown clearly that it meets the standard of a given fallacy & therefore is a fallacious argument.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 5:24 PM Calypsis4 has not replied

Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 292 of 416 (527687)
10-02-2009 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Calypsis4
10-01-2009 5:22 PM


kinds
Hi Calypsis
Just discovered this thread and it really is moving quickly but just wanted to clear something up. Back in post 16 Magda (your reply in 20) used the word syngameon, which he got from a debate with me, which simply means "Syngameons are clusters that comprise several morphospecies, i.e., "the sum total of species or semispecies linked by frequent or occasional hybridization in nature". ". And no i don't agree to genus=kind. Hybridization with another species (or even if hybridization occurs between a 3rd species) is an operational way in which we can test animals to see if they are in the same "kind", however, it does not follow that because two species cannot hybridize therefore they are not the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). Also we cannot test fossils for hybridization.
As you pointed out in your later posts the classification system is not infallible, and therefore i would discourage the use of family=kind.
Btw, you are doing well, and thouroughly endorse the arguments that you are making. Keep up the good work.
as an aside
lithodid writes:
T-Rex with viable blood cells? Man, wouldn't that be amazing if it ever happened? Too bad it is impossible!
You haven't heard of schweitzer's t-rex finds? But yes according to evolution it is impossible, however the fact that they do exist again says that there is a fault with evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Calypsis4, posted 10-01-2009 5:22 PM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2009 8:58 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 295 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:06 AM Arphy has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 293 of 416 (527691)
10-02-2009 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Arphy
10-02-2009 7:55 AM


Re: kinds
Off-topic: stuff hidden.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
Edited by Bluejay, : off-topic
Edited by Bluejay, : nevermind
Edited by Bluejay, : I undid my hiding, apparently?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Arphy, posted 10-02-2009 7:55 AM Arphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:27 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 294 of 416 (527700)
10-02-2009 10:03 AM


DEAR MR ADMINISTRATOR:
I don't intend to post any more evidence against evolution on this thread as I stated earlier but please permit me to answer some questions that keep coming my way.
I suppose I could go on and commit massive overkill but most of the posters have made up their minds and I am not going to convince them even if I go ahead and post a hundred or more illustrations of the non-evolution of biological organisms.

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Kitsune, posted 10-02-2009 10:29 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 295 of 416 (527701)
10-02-2009 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Arphy
10-02-2009 7:55 AM


Re: kinds
As you pointed out in your later posts the classification system is not infallible, and therefore i would discourage the use of family=kind.
Btw, you are doing well, and thouroughly endorse the arguments that you are making. Keep up the good work.
Thanks very much. But I think I will have to stick with 'family' even though the boundaries of 'kind' are not always as clear and fit neatly into place in our minds. This will be determined by more research and the boundaries will become clearer in time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Arphy, posted 10-02-2009 7:55 AM Arphy has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 296 of 416 (527702)
10-02-2009 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Blue Jay
10-02-2009 8:58 AM


Re: kinds
"Viable" was the key word there. Preservation of proteins does not equate to preservation of viable cells
Well, if this...
does not amount to 'viable' then it's certainly the next thing to it. A 68 million yr old T-Rex with soft tissue/blood cells that are 'spongy'? But the truth is (at least according to evolutionists BEFORE the soft tissue discoveries) that DNA should not survive at all, even if the creature only lived 50,000 yrs ago.* So when will the fairy tales end? The stories just keep getting more ridiculous.
This is even more damaging than the 'living fossils' matter. But evolutionists are doing what the always do: change the time frame as it concerns the survival of living tissue. They will not challenge the paradigm: millions/billions of yrs.
*(Morell, V. 1993, Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype. Science. 261 (5118):160.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Blue Jay, posted 10-02-2009 8:58 AM Blue Jay has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


(1)
Message 297 of 416 (527704)
10-02-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 10:03 AM


quote:
I am not going to convince them even if I go ahead and post a hundred or more illustrations of the non-evolution of biological organisms.
The fact that you can even be saying this at this point, after everything that's been said to you here, is truly astounding.
You still seem to believe that posting pictures of organisms that look alike is proof that none of them have evolved (it isn't, as has been shown).
You still seem to believe that the existence of organisms that have changed little over time is somehow devastating for evolution (it isn't, as has been shown). Don't you think that the fact that a biologist has a fossil on his desk which is millions of years old, but not very different from existing present-day organisms, and freely admits such, is a bit of an indicator that he is rather unperturbed by your unsupported accusations?
If you want to leave the thread with beliefs about the ToE which are just as mistaken as they were when you came here in the first place, then go right ahead. Or you might like to stick around and try to learn something.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:03 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:59 AM Kitsune has replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 298 of 416 (527707)
10-02-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by Vacate
10-02-2009 12:12 AM


Re: Atomic bombs?
It is still in question simply because you have not explained the importance of living fossils as a proof against evolution
That's like telling Columbus, "You haven't proven the world is round because you didn't complete a journey around the globe!"
Right.
This hardly seems to be an atomic bomb on evolution. There are plenty of ways that evolution could be found to be false...
Yes, there are and I intend to utilize them. It's high time that those who have lived in this fairy tale dream wake up and smell the coffee.
There should be hundreds of examples of so called 'non-evolution' as you have described it. They are all fine examples of living fossils, as predicted by evolution, and I am sure that all participants in this thread could provide many more examples for you. The question that keeps coming up however is why you think this supports your argument.
"as predicted by evolution"? No, don't even go there. Evolutionists 100 yrs ago did not know this was going to happen.
Do you recall the illustration of the Model-T with the Lamborghini? My point was that if I wanted to prove to school students the 'evolution' of modern vehicles machines called 'cars' then I could do so easily with written records, photos, and perhaps a visit to a museum revealing the stages of development through the years. But what is easy to do with cars is impossible with evolution. The evidence simply isn't there and what scant evidence they do have is highly in question. Even evolutionists can't agree on what's what:
Which is the real 'Zinjanthropus'?
Eeny, meeny, miny, moe... catch an ape men by his toe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Vacate, posted 10-02-2009 12:12 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by mark24, posted 10-02-2009 10:59 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 312 by Vacate, posted 10-02-2009 2:44 PM Calypsis4 has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 299 of 416 (527709)
10-02-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Calypsis4
10-02-2009 10:56 AM


Re: Atomic bombs?
Boy you're fast - just in time! Thanks for noticing. --Admin
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Add moderator comment.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Calypsis4, posted 10-02-2009 10:56 AM Calypsis4 has not replied

Calypsis4
Member (Idle past 5213 days)
Posts: 428
Joined: 09-29-2009


Message 300 of 416 (527710)
10-02-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Kitsune
10-02-2009 10:29 AM


The fact that you can even be saying this at this point, after everything that's been said to you here, is truly astounding.
No, just the opposite. The fact that there is so much direct, visible evidence and you turn your nose up to it is astounding.
Why do you believe in this fairy tale the the world made itself, assembled life by blind natural processes, and then 'evolved' life when the evidence clearly runs counter to such a preposterous notion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Kitsune, posted 10-02-2009 10:29 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Admin, posted 10-02-2009 11:03 AM Calypsis4 has not replied
 Message 302 by Kitsune, posted 10-02-2009 11:54 AM Calypsis4 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024