Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   $50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 305 (51688)
08-21-2003 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by joshua221
08-21-2003 8:52 PM


I did not say pure oxygen. I said more oxygen, stop putting words in my mouth alright?
Well, if pure oxygen is bad, then more oxygen can't be automatically good, can it?
So you are saying that 4000 years ago there was no life on earth beyond bacteria? You obviously are mistaken. We must not be on the same page.
No, what I'm saying is that if your model is true - if enough water to flood the earth was suspended over the atmosphere - the pressure would have been so great as to kill all life on earth.
Since there's life on earth, we know then that your model is wrong. Ergo, there's never been enough water over the earth to flood the earth - not even close.
Let me sum up - the presence of life on earth falsifies your theory about water above the sky.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by joshua221, posted 08-21-2003 8:52 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by joshua221, posted 08-21-2003 9:26 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 71 of 305 (51691)
08-21-2003 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by joshua221
08-21-2003 9:13 PM


But there isn't.
But there is. Why don't you go to a bookstore and pick up Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory"? You'll find the evidence therein. Of course you may need a biology degree to understand most of it. I certainly don't pretend to understand the whole thing, or have the patience to read all the way through it.
Now, can we be done with the unsupported assertions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by joshua221, posted 08-21-2003 9:13 PM joshua221 has not replied

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


Message 80 of 305 (51702)
08-21-2003 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by joshua221
08-21-2003 9:26 PM


Oh really how is this? The pressure was up to a perfect amount for a more then perfect Earth.
How is that possible? How much water do you suppose was in the atmosphere? Enough to raise the sea level 9km, perhaps? If that much water is held over the earth, guess what the atmospheric pressure has to be? The same as if you were 9km below the surface of the earth:
quote:
Now the "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, being a body of gas (water vapor) gravitationally held to the earth. It would in fact be most of the pre-flood atmosphere. There would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid, when condensed, and, therefore the vapor would weigh as much as 9km of water. The pressure at the earth's surface, where Noah and family lived, would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. What is this pressure? Well, each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part of what we call air today.
How could an atmosphere almost 100% water vapor not condense? The temperature would have to be raised to the point where the partial pressure of water equals 900 atmospheres, i.e. the boiling point at that pressure. So we find Noah et al. living in a 13,000psi boiler. Is this credible?
(From No webpage found at provided URL: http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/origins/canopy.txt)
What kind of life do we find at 9km below the surface of the sea? Mostly bacteria. So your high-pressure world isn't the perfect world for life, it's a sterile pressure cooker.
Yes there has-by far. When combined with the "SPRINGS THAT BURST FORTH, a global flood occured.
Where did the water go, then? After the flood? Back into the springs? If so, where are the springs? (the non-Answer In Genesis: "God made them go away.")
You have no idea what your talking about. It has been proven that life could have survived, survived with greatness actually, with the oxygen (this is good ask any scientist) people could have ran forever and not tire.
Nope. The pressure's too great, and the temperature too high, for life to exist. It's a pretty simple calculation, you should be able to follow it. It's pretty basic physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by joshua221, posted 08-21-2003 9:26 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by joshua221, posted 08-21-2003 11:06 PM crashfrog has replied

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


Message 91 of 305 (51726)
08-21-2003 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by joshua221
08-21-2003 11:06 PM


Basically I am sick of fighting and getting nowhere, I could debate on this forever and no progress would ever be made.
You may think that, but all you have to do to prove us wrong is present evidence we can't explain through evolution. It's really that easy.
Just too tired for all of this. You might not know what it's like being on the Evolutionist's side and all, having 2 creationists to debate with.
Yeah, I do know what that's like. The thing is you don't have to immediately respond. If you're being overwhelmed, take your time. And a lot of the time we're saying the same thing, in different ways, so you don't have to directly respond to each one of us, all the time. If we really, really want a direct answer to a straight question we'll point that out.
Just a thought, if you're reading this:
Sea level? I do not believe there was a sea level on the Earth at that time, So far I have been led to believe that there were springs beneath a layer of earth and this provided for the people.
There would have had to have been a sea, in order to have sea creatures, wouldn't there? Like you said 90 some percent of fossils are marine fossils. If there were no seas where did those organisms live?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by joshua221, posted 08-21-2003 11:06 PM joshua221 has not replied

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


Message 171 of 305 (64075)
11-03-2003 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by PeriferaliiFocust
11-03-2003 12:42 AM


You observe that animals are similar, certain animals are more similar than others, perhaps it appears one animal is a more advanced form of another. This makes sense, but the more i think about it the more holes i see in exactly how evolution works.
Let me answer your question with another question, to suggest to you the magnitude of the task paleontologists have before them.
You have two complete fossil skeletons in front of you. They're almost, but not quite, the same. Are they members of different species, or do they represent two slightly different individuals of the same species?
We define species as a "reproductive community". This is a great definition when we're trying to figure out whether or not two living organisms are in the same species. It sucks when we're talking about dead stuff.
These are hard problems. Biologists work on this stuff every day, and nature seems to be trying as hard as it can to resist simple categorization. But just because it's hard doesn't mean it's not true, and evolution explains these problems a lot better than creationism does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 11-03-2003 12:42 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

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


Message 176 of 305 (64085)
11-03-2003 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by PeriferaliiFocust
11-03-2003 1:57 AM


crashfrog- thanks for your post, my brain is too fried at the moment to think of much more to say-- could you please look at my other thread and help, like i said, brad is killing me.
Ignore him. I'm of the opinion that he has an odd neurological condition, something like aphasia - he can't use language in the way that you and I do.
is there any way to look at things like chromosomes in fossils, or are they basically broken down over such long time periods?
It's very, very rare that we're able to get genetic data from fossils. Like Jurassic Park sometimes it survives in funny places, but genetic molecules almost never survive decomposition.
For example how does chromosome addition/deletion work? it must happen. I don't want to know about examples in bacteria, there's a lot more variation on such level. What about humans-- how many chromosomes did the species preceding us have? Is there a way to know how a chromosome(s) was lost or gained to create our species?
Sometimes. For instance there's two human chromosomes that, if you put them together end-to-end, you get one of the chromosomes present in other apes. Suggesting that those two we have came about when that one chromosome in apes broke into two pieces.
I heard that somewhere, anyway. One of the biologists here could tell you more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 11-03-2003 1:57 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Rrhain, posted 11-03-2003 6:16 AM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 186 of 305 (64358)
11-04-2003 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by PeriferaliiFocust
11-04-2003 1:48 AM


However the greatest reason i do not accept evolution is my religion.
No offense, but do you really think that's the best way to find out the truth about things?
I mean, by which are you more likely to be decieved? Your own senses, honestly inquiring into the world around you, or by reading a 4000-year-old book with no relevance to the issue in question?
If evolution is demonstratably true, does it even matter what your religion has to say about it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by PeriferaliiFocust, posted 11-04-2003 1:48 AM PeriferaliiFocust has not replied

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


Message 225 of 305 (79716)
01-21-2004 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-20-2004 3:47 PM


If evolution is a lie, it will be mal-adaptive
Why would lies be maladaptive? If anything, lying to prospective mates is a great way to achieve reproductive access. Just watch the Lifetime channel sometime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-20-2004 3:47 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-21-2004 9:55 AM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 226 of 305 (79717)
01-21-2004 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by johnfolton
01-20-2004 11:26 PM


, if the sediments were deposited millions of years ago, the rocks in the upper 3 to 4 feet would of surfaced to the surface, however, each year the farmer has to pick the rocks that surface, this is why you will see rock fences alongside some of the farmers fields, its called the farmers curse
I don't know where you live, but here in Minnesota, I don't think the soil is any older than the end of the last ice age - it was deposited here after being dragged up from Kansas and the like by retreating glaciers. So that's maybe 10,000 years ago or so.
I would guess that in soil that's truly millions of years old, there's no farmer's curse - also, there's probably no farmers, because that soil would probably be barren.
the fact they are still being pressed up is your proof, and supporting the Creationists Theory that these sediments were laid down in the biblical world flood, etc...
Yes, it's proof that some soils are not millions of years old. We already knew that. Only a simplistic model, such as creationism, would not take into account the fact that things change over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by johnfolton, posted 01-20-2004 11:26 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by JonF, posted 01-21-2004 8:32 AM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 285 of 305 (81272)
01-27-2004 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by roboto85
01-27-2004 10:12 PM


So you're telling me mutations that cause a different color of fur on a rabbit, first off, 1)change the species and/or 2) Make it so a white rabbit can't or doesn't want to breed with a brown rabbit?
Well, yes and no. Mutation will evenutally lead to a new species of rabbit. But only under a situation called "reproductive isolation." That's when the population of white rabbits is prevented from mating with the population of brown rabbits for many generations. After generations of that separation, the gene pools are so separate - as a result of accumulating mutation - that those groups would not be able to mate when put together.
And yet, coyotes can breed with common dogs??
They can't always do it. They can't do it with every dog. That's evidence that the populations are on their way to speciation. It's a gradual process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by roboto85, posted 01-27-2004 10:12 PM roboto85 has not replied

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


Message 294 of 305 (128416)
07-28-2004 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Deimos Saturn
07-28-2004 9:24 AM


time isn't "real", it is an illusion of the mind.
If that's true how come clocks always seem to agree with each other?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Deimos Saturn, posted 07-28-2004 9:24 AM Deimos Saturn has not replied

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


Message 304 of 305 (156720)
11-06-2004 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Davidjay
11-06-2004 1:14 PM


Nope, you lose. All you've proved is that you can't have a fully-functional cell arise from nothing. Since that has never been a claim of evolution, you've proved nothing.
Sorry. Next time, actually read up on the theory you're trying to disprove. Might be a bit of a help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Davidjay, posted 11-06-2004 1:14 PM Davidjay 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