Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.
frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 376 of 752 (581058)
09-13-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by Huntard
09-13-2010 9:26 AM


Re: Evolution Proven Wrong Again (Bump)
am..... i cant see anything in the article that would disprove evolution it only disproves the earlier assumption of when modern birds evolved. i could be missing something cause i cant see the whole article

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by Huntard, posted 09-13-2010 9:26 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by Huntard, posted 09-13-2010 9:41 AM frako has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 377 of 752 (581059)
09-13-2010 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by frako
09-13-2010 9:36 AM


Re: Evolution Proven Wrong Again (Bump)
frako writes:
am..... i cant see anything in the article that would disprove evolution it only disproves the earlier assumption of when modern birds evolved. i could be missing something cause i cant see the whole article
No, that's pretty much the point Percy was making. Articles like this will quite often be misinterpreted by creationists (or even lied about), who will say the article proves evolution is wrong. When it doesn't do that at all, it just shows that evolution took a different route than hitherto thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by frako, posted 09-13-2010 9:36 AM frako has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4777 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 378 of 752 (581971)
09-18-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Coyote
09-12-2010 7:14 PM


Re: Flood disproved by science
quote:
Radiocarbon dating, along with artifact typologies and stratigraphy. Also obsidian hydration, but that is nowhere near as accurate.
And what results were found from each method?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Coyote, posted 09-12-2010 7:14 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2010 1:53 PM dennis780 has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4777 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 379 of 752 (581972)
09-18-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Buzsaw
09-12-2010 8:49 PM


Re: Genetic Information
quote:
Abiogenic life developed from premordal soup to simplest life which naturally increased simple genitic information which mutated additional information all the way from simplcity to all of the complex genetic information observed today in billions of life forms, void of any intelligent design.
There is absolutely no science in any of the above statement. This is what we are here to debate. Each and every point you just said is extremely generic, and most of them have no evidence to support it.
There is no proof of macroevolution, abiogenesis, or the Big Bang.
quote:
Truly amazing!
Accidents are truly amazing? I hope you don't take the same route to work as me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Buzsaw, posted 09-12-2010 8:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2010 1:53 PM dennis780 has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 380 of 752 (581975)
09-18-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by dennis780
09-18-2010 1:51 PM


Re: Genetic Information
LOL!
Unfair of me to even comment but I'll let Buz explain how you read him totally wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 1:51 PM dennis780 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 381 of 752 (581976)
09-18-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by dennis780
09-18-2010 1:42 PM


Re: Flood disproved by science
quote:
Radiocarbon dating, along with artifact typologies and stratigraphy. Also obsidian hydration, but that is nowhere near as accurate.
And what results were found from each method?
Most of the radiocarbon dates were from a component about 5,300-5,800 years ago, with a few stretching back past 7,000 years ago.
Artifact typologies dated later components, confirming the stratigraphy (older toward the bottom, younger toward the top).
Obsidian dating supported those age estimates.
There was no evidence of a flood in the site deposit. So, based on this one site you either have to move the flood past 7,000 years or admit that it is a myth.
(And there are a lot of sites around the world that are older--no global flood deposits there either.)
If you want to dispute the dating, you'll have to take it to a dating thread. I won't respond to any additional posts on dating here.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 1:42 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 2:14 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 392 by IchiBan, posted 09-19-2010 11:59 PM Coyote has replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4777 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 382 of 752 (581977)
09-18-2010 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by crashfrog
09-12-2010 9:02 PM


Re: Genetic Information
quote:
Take a square meter of your lawn and you could spend a dozen lifetimes studying the biology, chemistry, and ecology of the myriad of species located therein - and God had nothing at all to do with any of it.
This is up for debate. You personally BELIEVE that God had nothing to do with it.
So I suppose if I threw a rock off a mountain, then hiked down, there would be a brand new Ford F-350 waiting for me at the bottom, based entirely on random occurances on the way down. I hope you are right, because I am in need of a new truck for work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2010 9:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2010 2:04 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 387 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2010 2:21 PM dennis780 has replied
 Message 390 by frako, posted 09-18-2010 3:21 PM dennis780 has not replied
 Message 391 by DC85, posted 09-18-2010 3:35 PM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4777 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 383 of 752 (581979)
09-18-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by frako
09-13-2010 9:11 AM


Re: Evolution Proven Wrong Again (Bump)
quote:
he thaught it would be fun to leave a remains of a tail in humans just to see if they can come up whit a silly argument like evolution to explain it.
Leaving out the spelling errors, your sentence is still of of them (errors that is).
If you look at the tailbone from an evolutionary bias, you could conclude that it is a vestigal bone from our ancestors.
OR, you could conclude that the coccyx actually is a fully functional bone, just ask someone who has had theirs removed what it's like to sit. On top of that, many muscles are attached to the tail bone, that are important for bowel and labor movements, supporting internal organs, and keeping the anus closed. The coccyx is just the end point for the back. All things come to an end you know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by frako, posted 09-13-2010 9:11 AM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 389 by Theodoric, posted 09-18-2010 3:08 PM dennis780 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 384 of 752 (581980)
09-18-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by dennis780
09-18-2010 1:54 PM


Re: Genetic Information
So I suppose if I threw a rock off a mountain, then hiked down, there would be a brand new Ford F-350 waiting for me at the bottom, based entirely on random occurances on the way down. I hope you are right, because I am in need of a new truck for work.
Throwing rocks off the mountain will only get you a chevy.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 1:54 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 2:15 PM Coyote has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4777 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 385 of 752 (581983)
09-18-2010 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Coyote
09-18-2010 1:53 PM


Re: Flood disproved by science
Most of the radiocarbon dates were from a component about 5,300-5,800 years ago, with a few stretching back past 7,000 years ago.
You`ll have to excuse my non quoting, my keyboard is acting weird, and certain buttons are acting up, but you know what you wrote.
How big was the study (question mark). Or were the dates conflicting by a few thousand years (thats a question mark again).
There was no evidence of a flood in the site deposit. So, based on this one site you either have to move the flood past 7,000 years or admit that it is a myth.
Neither, since your dating methods argue against each other, I don`t have to argue them at all. Also, how would you know whether or not any layer of the earth were a flood layer (since if there were a global flood, almost all of the layers in the earth would have been caused by the flood, due to water erosion, and eventual settling).
If you want to dispute the dating, you'll have to take it to a dating thread. I won't respond to any additional posts on dating here.
This is a free-for-all thread, but I don`t intend to argue the dates, since the dates themselves argue each other (two of them at least, showing two different ages of 5200 to 7000 years, while the obsidian method you even admit is not accurate, so pointless to argue).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2010 1:53 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2010 2:43 PM dennis780 has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4777 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 386 of 752 (581984)
09-18-2010 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Coyote
09-18-2010 2:04 PM


Re: Genetic Information
Throwing rocks off the mountain will only get you a chevy.
Hahahahaha, hense the expression, Like A Rock. HAHahaha.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Coyote, posted 09-18-2010 2:04 PM Coyote has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 387 of 752 (581986)
09-18-2010 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by dennis780
09-18-2010 1:54 PM


Re: Genetic Information
You personally BELIEVE that God had nothing to do with it.
There's a substantial amount of evidence that your "God" is a fabrication, so it's impossible for "God" to have had anything to do with it; there's no such thing.
This is up for debate.
You would be the first theist in a long while who was truly prepared to honestly debate the existence of God - if you actually are. Like most theists, though, I suspect you're not prepared to become an atheist if atheist arguments are convincing. Won't the debate simply end with you saying "well, say what you like, but you can't shake my faith in God"? And if you're not even willing to consider the other side, how can you debate it?
So I suppose if I threw a rock off a mountain, then hiked down, there would be a brand new Ford F-350 waiting for me at the bottom, based entirely on random occurances on the way down.
If that happens to you (or me) in the next week, I'll believe in God. I promise.
Absurd, just-in-time coincidences are your position, theist, not mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 1:54 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by dennis780, posted 10-20-2010 3:45 AM crashfrog has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 388 of 752 (581989)
09-18-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by dennis780
09-18-2010 2:14 PM


Re: Flood disproved by science
If you want to dispute the dating, you'll have to take it to a dating thread. I won't respond to any additional posts on dating here.
You're right, I forgot this was a free for all thread!
How big was the study? Or were the dates conflicting by a few thousand years?
The site I tested was occupied for several thousand years, with more occupation at certain time periods and less at others.
The dating included 31 radiocarbon samples taken from a variety of proveniences and materials. When there were questions, additional dates were done to clarify those questions.
Your suggestion of dates conflicting makes no sense. People occupied that site for a long time, not just one season. Our dating was able to determine the duration of that occupation.
Neither, since your dating methods argue against each other, I don`t have to argue them at all.
The dating methods supplement each other. There was no evidence that any of the dating we did was inadequate.
You might not like to see dates which disprove the global flood, but you can't just hand wave them away because you don't like them. You have to come up with evidence, and show how the dates, or the dating methods, are in error.
Also, how would you know whether or not any layer of the earth were a flood layer (since if there were a global flood, almost all of the layers in the earth would have been caused by the flood, due to water erosion, and eventual settling).
Easy! Flood deposits have a particular characteristic. They can be readily identified. First, depending on the speed of the water you get sorting of cobbles, pebbles, etc. Slow moving water will deposit larger grains than standing water. After a large flood, when the water is carrying a load of materials, those will settle out in a predictable manner. Expect to see silt and clay deposits. The clay deposits can be pretty dense and compact.
What we had in this site was normal soils laid down in a normal manner over thousands of years, augmented by what the occupants brought to the site--shell, bone, rocks, wood (charcoal and ash), plant materials (macrofloral remains and pollen), etc.
Better stick to what you know something about. You're not doing too well at showing there was a global flood.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 2:14 PM dennis780 has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 389 of 752 (581995)
09-18-2010 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by dennis780
09-18-2010 2:04 PM


English is not Frako's first language
Leaving out the spelling errors, your sentence is still of of them (errors that is).
He is not a native English speaker.
This has been pointed out before. I don't remember if it was directly to you, but you should have the decency to be cordial to Frako.
He is doing a fantastic job in making himself understood. Before you criticize his spelling how about you try to post in Slovenian to see how well you can do at that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 2:04 PM dennis780 has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 306 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 390 of 752 (581999)
09-18-2010 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 382 by dennis780
09-18-2010 1:54 PM


Re: Genetic Information
So I suppose if I threw a rock off a mountain, then hiked down, there would be a brand new Ford F-350 waiting for me at the bottom, based entirely on random occurances on the way down. I hope you are right, because I am in need of a new truck for work.
well if you have good car insurance and that rock caused an avalanche that would bury your car, and your wife who would be waiting at the bottom would call your version of amzs and they could bring you a Ford 350 temporary car. totally random yet plausible although you would probably say god made it so that i can try out this car
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by dennis780, posted 09-18-2010 1:54 PM dennis780 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