Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9035 total)
57 online now:
(57 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,607 Year: 3,253/14,102 Month: 194/724 Week: 43/93 Day: 3/5 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 616 of 1385 (851699)
05-01-2019 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 571 by Tanypteryx
04-24-2019 11:33 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
Tanypteryx writes:

So, you've got nothing, that's what I figured. You are stuck in 1859. Most fossils have been discovered since then.

Where are the fossils that demonstrate the evolutionary links between the sponges, worms and barnacles of the pre-Cambrian and the fish of the Cambrian? What are the evolutionary ancestors of insects?

I note you didn't answer any of my questions from Message 510.

Your questions are unscientific in nature and not relevant to the thread.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-24-2019 11:33 AM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 618 by edge, posted 05-01-2019 1:38 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 625 by caffeine, posted 05-01-2019 5:45 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 629 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-01-2019 11:57 AM Dredge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 600 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 617 of 1385 (851700)
05-01-2019 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 614 by Dredge
05-01-2019 1:09 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
Oh dear ... if this is your best defence, you're in trouble. As time goes by, the "incomplete fossil record" argument gets weaker and weaker.

"Oh dear" is right. We find more an more fossil data supporting evolution all the time.

The Chinese Cambrian fossil beds did evolutionary theory no favours at all - more soft-bodies fossils were found but no evolutionary links between the Ediacaran and the Cambrian.

As I said, Darwin had an explanation from the beginning. Who says that the fossil record must be 'complete'? The point is that we have an explanation and you do not. Please document the fossils you are talking about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2019 1:09 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 674 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2019 3:17 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 600 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 618 of 1385 (851701)
05-01-2019 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 616 by Dredge
05-01-2019 1:17 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
Where are the fossils that demonstrate the evolutionary links between the sponges, worms and barnacles of the pre-Cambrian and the fish of the Cambrian?

What 'barnacles, worms and sponges' of the Precambrian are you talking about? Please document. You keep spouting this stuff like you know something about them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2019 1:17 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 675 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2019 3:19 AM edge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 619 of 1385 (851702)
05-01-2019 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 572 by AZPaul3
04-24-2019 11:46 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
AZPaul3 writes:

Yes, there are pre-cambrian fossils. Look 'em up. Here, I'll help get you started.

Of course there are - I never said there weren't. But unfortunately for your evolution belief system, there are no fossils that show evolutionary links between pre-Cambrian life-forms and all the novel phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion.

And note that a lot of these begatters were 700, 800, 900 years old.

Please be advised that, by any standard, the Bible qualifies an authentic, historical document.

No wonder you see your god as so pissed at the humans. According to you the whole population was begat into existence by a bunch of really way-old faggots.

I'm sure your homophobic language does not please the Great False god of Equality that you atheists invented.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by AZPaul3, posted 04-24-2019 11:46 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 621 by edge, posted 05-01-2019 1:50 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 626 by Theodoric, posted 05-01-2019 8:05 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 630 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-01-2019 12:10 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 600 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 620 of 1385 (851703)
05-01-2019 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 613 by Dredge
05-01-2019 1:06 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
"Recent research"? You mean just another untestable theoretical fantasy dreamed up by atheists who can't accept the implications of the non-existence of fossil ancestors leading up to the Cambrian explosion.

No, we mean the fossil evidence that actually exists and an explanation for it. There was precursor life to the Cambrian species. They were the link between earlier life and Cambrian forms.

An untestable theory ...

Except that it is tested virtually every day in paleontological research. And it is supported by new fossil discoveries.

... doesn't even qualify as science - it's just a worthless story.

According to someone who has literally no background in science, yes?

That's convincing.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2019 1:06 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 676 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2019 3:29 AM edge has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 600 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 621 of 1385 (851704)
05-01-2019 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 619 by Dredge
05-01-2019 1:39 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Of course there are - I never said there weren't. But unfortunately for your evolution belief system, there are no fossils that show evolutionary links between pre-Cambrian life-forms and all the novel phyla that appeared during the Cambrian explosion.

And there is an explanation for this, your denial notwithstanding. There are in fact several lines of evidence explaining why this happened, along with the condition of the fossil record of over half a billion years ago.

Please be advised that, by any standard, the Bible qualifies an authentic, historical document.

And it tells you all about the Cambrian explosion.

That's nice. Got a reference, chapter and verse?

And where does the Bible tell you that the planet is billions of years old and life a bit less?

And the fossil record is not about history, but pre-history, so a 'historical' codument is really irrelevant.

I'm sure your homophobic language does not please the Great False god of Equality that you atheists invented.

He was probably just using language that he thought you would understand.

Nuance is really lost on you guys, isn't it?

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 619 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2019 1:39 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2019 3:43 AM edge has responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 622 of 1385 (851705)
05-01-2019 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 605 by dwise1
04-30-2019 1:24 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
RAZD writes:

The complete genealogy from the Sun Goddess, Amaterasu, to the modern-day Emperor has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years.


Why is it “superior” to the Biblical genealogies? Wait … is it because it claims men descended from gods and that Japanese Emperors are gods? If so, Yes, you make a very valid point – genealogies based on such fantasies are completely trustworthy!

Stop your stupid lying and just answer the fucking question!

I’ve already answered that question.

If you are so terrified of simple direct questions, then there is something very seriously wrong with your position. And it's not just you; every creationist acts the same way. If all you have to offer are lies and deception and you are so terrified of simple direct questions, then you very seriously need to do some self-evaluation. You are just like your puny frightened impotent little "God of the Gaps" who has to hide in the shadows in absolute terror of knowledge and the light. How absolutely pitiful!

You’re so funny sometimes! Laughter is the best medicine.

"God of the Gaps"

The reality is, only God can fill the gaps. Take the Cambrian explosion, for example - your evolution story is hopeless at explaining the total lack of pre-Cambrian ancestral links.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 605 by dwise1, posted 04-30-2019 1:24 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 624 by dwise1, posted 05-01-2019 3:43 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 628 by edge, posted 05-01-2019 9:19 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 623 of 1385 (851706)
05-01-2019 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 564 by JonF
04-24-2019 8:34 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
JohF writes:

And, given that soft bodies don't fossilize well, so what?


So organisms went from soft-bodies to hard-bodied with no fossil evidence? Dream on.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by JonF, posted 04-24-2019 8:34 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 627 by edge, posted 05-01-2019 9:09 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4608
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.4


(4)
Message 624 of 1385 (851712)
05-01-2019 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 622 by Dredge
05-01-2019 2:06 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
DWise1 writes:

Stop your stupid lying and just answer the fucking question!


I’ve already answered that question.

The hell you did! You expressed the YEC belief in the recent appearance of humans, contrary to the teachings of progressive creationism, referring solely to the YEC practice (again contrary to progressive creationism) of biblical literalism to support your religious assertion of the recent appearance of humans (ie, 6,000 to 10,000 years ago).

This is a Science Forum! What scientific evidence you have to support your religious assertion of the recent appearance of humans? You have not yet provided any scientific support for that!

Therefore, you have not even begun to answer that question! So answer the fucking question, you troll!

Furthermore, you mocked the idea of humans having been around for longer that you assert:

Homo sapiens have been dated as 200, 000 years old? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!! Deary me ... the delusions and nonsense you evolutionists are forced to come up with!

For that reversion to your imbecilic trolling you have not offered any kind of evidence nor support. You need to support your bald assertion that humans could not have been around for that long. What is your scientific evidence that would indicate the impossibility of humans having been around for 200,000 years?

Again, you have never even begun to answer that question. Therefore, when you claim that you have already answer either of those questions, then you are lying to us!

Stop your stupid lying and answer the fucking questions!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 622 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2019 2:06 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(3)
Message 625 of 1385 (851714)
05-01-2019 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 616 by Dredge
05-01-2019 1:17 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
Where are the fossils that demonstrate the evolutionary links between the sponges, worms and barnacles of the pre-Cambrian and the fish of the Cambrian?

Since you seem to have ignored my last post I'll reiterate; since you apear to be a bit confused what you're supposed to be arguing for. It's controversial whether there are any sponges in the pre-Cambrian, but there are definitely no barnacles. Barnacles; like insects; are arthropods, one of those animal phyla which you were telling us has no pre-Cambrian evolutionary history.

The woms, as I said before, are the most plausible candidates for being the ancestors of some of the phyla you think don't have ancestors, so I'm not sure why you're raising them in this context.

There are still no Cambrian fish.

I strongly recommend perhaps reading a book or two about the animal fossil record; since it looks a bit silly making sweeping pronouncements about the world based on something you clearly know little about.

Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2019 1:17 AM Dredge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 673 by AZPaul3, posted 05-02-2019 10:10 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


(2)
Message 626 of 1385 (851716)
05-01-2019 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 619 by Dredge
05-01-2019 1:39 AM


Wrong about history as well as science
Please be advised that, by any standard, the Bible qualifies an authentic, historical document

Please be advised, just because you assert something does not make it true. By no standard is your bible an actual history. In order to be considered a document that recounts actual historical events it would need provenance and corroboration. That would just be the start to be considered a document reflecting actual history.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 619 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2019 1:39 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 781 by Dredge, posted 05-06-2019 5:43 PM Theodoric has responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 600 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 627 of 1385 (851717)
05-01-2019 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 623 by Dredge
05-01-2019 2:21 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
So organisms went from soft-bodies to hard-bodied with no fossil evidence?

That IS the evidence.

And it happened over an unimaginable amount of time (in human terms) and over almost all of the extant phyla. The fossil record slowly and apparently became dominated by organisms with hard body parts. This happened along with other major shifts in the geochemistry of the planet during the Proterozoic Era.

Dream on.

If you are talking about 'dreaming' constrained by evidence, fine with me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 623 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2019 2:21 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 600 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(5)
Message 628 of 1385 (851719)
05-01-2019 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 622 by Dredge
05-01-2019 2:06 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Why is it “superior” to the Biblical genealogies?

Well, I'm sure that you've made up your mind.

Wait … is it because it claims men descended from gods and that Japanese Emperors are gods?

I knew it!

No, but thanks once again for showing a remarkable talent for missing the point. We should take that into account when dealing with trolls.

If so, Yes, you make a very valid point – genealogies based on such fantasies are completely trustworthy!

In your world, it appears to be so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 622 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2019 2:06 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2497
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


(3)
Message 629 of 1385 (851723)
05-01-2019 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 616 by Dredge
05-01-2019 1:17 AM


Re: Progressive Creation
Dredge writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

So, you've got nothing, that's what I figured. You are stuck in 1859. Most fossils have been discovered since then.


Where are the fossils that demonstrate the evolutionary links between the sponges, worms and barnacles of the pre-Cambrian and the fish of the Cambrian? What are the evolutionary ancestors of insects?

What sponges, worms and barnacles of the pre-Cambrian? Described fossils have names so be specific. There are no fish in the Cambrian. Judging from what you write, you really are ignorant of this subject. Maybe you should stick with fictional characters like Adam and Eve.

Dredge writes:

What are the evolutionary ancestors of insects?

Earlier Arthropods, obviously.

Dredge writes:

Tanypteryx writes:

I note you didn't answer any of my questions from Message 510.


Your questions are unscientific in nature and not relevant to the thread.

They seem pretty scientific to me. Your credibility is well into the negative when you post this sort of thing in a science thread.

Dredge in message 612 writes:

Of course Adam and Eve were real!
I believe Noah's flood is an historical fact, but I also believe it wasn't global.

Did all humanity descended from Noah's family? I think so.

No modern animals evolved in last 4000 years – all animals were created, beginning billions of years ago.

Here are my questions from Message 510 again.

Dredge writes:

RAZD writes:

Progressive Creation" has no predictive ability


It does, actually- PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.

So, what is your definition of your theory of "Progressive Creation?"

Is there a formal theory that is published somewhere or are you just making it up as you go along?

Is there a scientific publication that lays out all the particulars of the "theory" or are you the only adherent?

How does PC determine that any gaps in the fossil record are inexplicable by science?

Dredge writes:

This prediction is confirmed by the evidence.

What specific evidence confirms that any gaps in the fossil record are scientifically inexplicable?

Is your prediction that gaps in the fossil record can never be scientifically explained? If so, how specifically could you confirm that prediction?

Credible or a troll?


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2019 1:17 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 632 by Phat, posted 05-01-2019 12:43 PM Tanypteryx has responded
 Message 784 by Dredge, posted 05-06-2019 5:48 PM Tanypteryx has responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2497
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.9


(2)
Message 630 of 1385 (851724)
05-01-2019 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 619 by Dredge
05-01-2019 1:39 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Dredge writes:

Please be advised that, by any standard, the Bible qualifies an authentic, historical document.

It is fiction. Only by the standard of delusional believers is it anything but fiction.

Dredge writes:

I'm sure your homophobic language does not please the Great False god of Equality that you atheists invented.

You don't know anything about atheists either. Your credibility is in the shitter when you try to use the bible in a scientific discussion.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 619 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2019 1:39 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021