Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science Disproves Evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 91 of 196 (443811)
12-26-2007 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Pahu
12-26-2007 5:51 PM


Re: Moon Recession
For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth, as assumed by evolutionists, has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100!
You've repeated this at least twice since I proved that it was a lie.
Ninth Commandment, anyone?
Meanwhile, we are still waiting for you creationists to make up your minds whether the Earth is 6,000 years old or 4,500,000,000 years old. Do let us know.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Pahu, posted 12-26-2007 5:51 PM Pahu has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 92 of 196 (443837)
12-26-2007 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Chiroptera
12-26-2007 6:28 PM


Re: Moon Recession
Heck the Cambrian was 50 million years no? That's pretty quick to produce a relatively large number of species from a initially low ancestor base.
And we can't forget that the rise of super pests and bacteria all have happened in less then 50 years.
quote:
The age of the earth is an observational fact, not a requirement in which to fit the evolution of the species.
Something creationist won't understand as they assume a conclusion and look for evidence rather then start with evidence and then conclude based on such evidence.
What do you think creationists would do if in the future we observe a planet where evolution occurs in a few thousand years? Crap in their pants and say Goddidit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Chiroptera, posted 12-26-2007 6:28 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by edge, posted 12-27-2007 12:00 AM obvious Child has replied
 Message 95 by Chiroptera, posted 12-27-2007 1:51 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 93 of 196 (443841)
12-27-2007 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by obvious Child
12-26-2007 11:48 PM


Re: Moon Recession
What do you think creationists would do if in the future we observe a planet where evolution occurs in a few thousand years? Crap in their pants and say Goddidit?
Edge's axiom: "At some point in the distant future, YECists will claim to have discovered bilogical evolution."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by obvious Child, posted 12-26-2007 11:48 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 2:18 AM edge has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 94 of 196 (443851)
12-27-2007 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by edge
12-27-2007 12:00 AM


Trash posting "hidden" - Adminnemooseus
{Trash posting "hidden". People, you're starting to piss me off. And don't reply to this comment in this message. If you must reply, go to General discussion of moderation procedures. - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by edge, posted 12-27-2007 12:00 AM edge has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 196 (443915)
12-27-2007 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by obvious Child
12-26-2007 11:48 PM


Re: Moon Recession
Heck the Cambrian was 50 million years no? That's pretty quick to produce a relatively large number of species from a initially low ancestor base.
Heh. Excellent point.

"The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness."
Clearly, he had his own strange way of judging things. I suspect that he acquired it from the Gospels. -- Victor Hugo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by obvious Child, posted 12-26-2007 11:48 PM obvious Child has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by bluescat48, posted 12-27-2007 4:02 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 96 of 196 (443941)
12-27-2007 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Chiroptera
12-27-2007 1:51 PM


Re: Moon Recession
The Cambrian Explosion:
For most of the nearly 4 billion years that life has existed on Earth, evolution produced little beyond bacteria, plankton, and multi-celled algae. But beginning about 600 million years ago in the Precambrian, the fossil record speaks of more rapid change. First, there was the rise and fall of mysterious creatures of the Ediacaran fauna, named for the fossil site in Australia where they were first discovered. Some of these animals may have belonged to groups that survive today, but others don't seem at all related to animals we know.
Then, between about 570 and 530 million years ago, another burst of diversification occurred, with the eventual appearance of the lineages of almost all animals living today. This stunning and unique evolutionary flowering is termed the "Cambrian explosion," taking the name of the geological age in whose early part it occurred. But it was not as rapid as an explosion: the changes seems to have happened in a range of about 30 million years, and some stages took 5 to 10 million years.
It's important to remember that what we call "the fossil record" is only the available fossil record. In order to be available to us, the remains of ancient plants and animals have to be preserved first, and this means that they need to have fossilizable parts and to be buried in an environment that will not destroy them.
It has long been suspected that the sparseness of the pre-Cambrian fossil record reflects these two problems. First, organisms may not have sequestered and secreted much in the way of fossilizable hard parts; and second, the environments in which they lived may have characteristically dissolved those hard parts after death and recycled them. An exception was the mysterious "small shelly fauna" -- minute shelled animals that are hard to categorize -- that left abundant fossils in the early Cambrian. Recently, minute fossil embryos dating to 570 million years ago have also been discovered. Even organisms that hadn't evolved hard parts, and thus didn't leave fossils of their bodies, left fossils of the trails they made as they moved through the Precambrian mud. Life was flourishing long before the Cambrian "explosion".
The best record of the Cambrian diversification is the Burgess Shale in British Columbia. Laid down in the middle-Cambrian, when the "explosion" had already been underway for several million years, this formation contains the first appearance in the fossil record of brachiopods, with clamlike shells, as well as trilobites, mollusks, echinoderms, and many odd animals that probably belong to extinct lineages. They include Opabinia, with five eyes and a nose like a fire hose, and Wiwaxia, an armored slug with two rows of upright scales.
The question of how so many immense changes occurred in such a short time is one that stirs scientists. Why did many fundamentally different body plans evolve so early and in such profusion? Some point to the increase in oxygen that began around 700 million years ago, providing fuel for movement and the evolution of more complex body structures. Others propose that an extinction of life just before the Cambrian opened up ecological roles, or "adaptive space," that the new forms exploited. External, ecological factors like these were undoubtedly important in creating the opportunity for the Cambrian explosion to occur.
Internal, genetic factors were also crucial. Recent research suggests that the period prior to the Cambrian explosion saw the gradual evolution of a "genetic tool kit" of genes that govern developmental processes. Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition. Many forms seen in the fossil record of the Cambrian disappeared without trace. Once the body plans that proved most successful came to dominate the biosphere, evolution never had such a free hand again, and evolutionary change was limited to relatively minor tinkering with the body plans that already existed.
Interpretations of this critical period are subject of lively debate among scientists like Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University. Gould emphasizes the role of chance. He argues that if one could "rerun the tape" of that evolutionary event, a completely different path might have developed and would likely not have included a humanlike creature. Morris, on the other hand, contends that the environment of our planet would have created selection pressures that would likely have produced similar forms of life to those around us -- including humans.
2001 WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions, Inc. All rights reserved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Chiroptera, posted 12-27-2007 1:51 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4871 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 97 of 196 (444036)
12-27-2007 10:23 PM


Yes science does disprove evolution.It was scientific observation that proved the piltdown man a hoax.It is also scientific observation that has finaly proved the australopithicienes have an opposable toe for climbing trees.Not hardly the foot that fits into the laetoli foot tracks that evolutionist swore upon their holy origin of species bible that they did.So you see science is confirming what creationist have been claiming all along.

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2007 10:32 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 98 of 196 (444039)
12-27-2007 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Jason777
12-27-2007 10:23 PM


Yes science does disprove evolution.It was scientific observation that proved the piltdown man a hoax.It is also scientific observation that has finaly proved the australopithicienes have an opposable toe for climbing trees.Not hardly the foot that fits into the laetoli foot tracks that evolutionist swore upon their holy origin of species bible that they did.So you see science is confirming what creationist have been claiming all along.
Please show me where creationists claimed "all along" that Piltdown Man was a hoax or that australopithecines had opposable toes --- before evolutionists told them that this was the case.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Jason777, posted 12-27-2007 10:23 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4871 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 99 of 196 (444044)
12-27-2007 10:51 PM


Actualy you will find evolutionist who still claim they made the laetoli foot tracks.And im at least one of the creationist who thought it was absurd to think lucy was a bipedal human ancestor way back when they first announced her discovery.I knew all i had to do is wait until more fossil material was found and get unbiased scientist to give their assessment of them.

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by jar, posted 12-27-2007 11:06 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 100 of 196 (444045)
12-27-2007 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Jason777
12-27-2007 10:51 PM


sources and so what?
What is your source that "australopithicenes had opposable toes?"
Even if true, how would that prevent them from being bipedal?
Sorry but I don't see where you have anything except yet another proof that they were transitional between some earlier primate and humans and our cousins the other apes.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Jason777, posted 12-27-2007 10:51 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4871 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 101 of 196 (444234)
12-28-2007 6:19 PM


Hi jar,How are you doing?You realy dont need me provide a source that shows apes have opposable do you?But since you ask (which is good science by the way) here is an evolutionist source that has a kind of comical twist (Little Foot stumbles into the crossfire). The kind of comical part is the evolutionist desperation to preserve his religion by claiming it must be bipedal from a square bone in its heel.Im sure creationist wont soon stop laughing over that.And yes im sure evolutionist will have no problem inventing some hypothetical missing link that made the laetoli foot tracks.But the evidence is crystal clear for any scientist,australopithicus,homo habilis,and homo erectus all lived in the same regeion at the same time.
Edited by Admin, : Fix link and add a space here and there.

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 6:58 PM Jason777 has replied
 Message 105 by jar, posted 12-28-2007 7:55 PM Jason777 has not replied
 Message 106 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 8:37 PM Jason777 has not replied
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2008 8:56 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 102 of 196 (444240)
12-28-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Jason777
12-28-2007 6:19 PM


Jason, you've been asked once.
Jason, it is common courtesy to provide the cite without having to be asked (per Rule 6). Since you didn't provide a cite and since you have been asked, you need to either provide the cite or concede. Something along the lines of:
"I, Jason777, have no cite for the claim that Australopithecenes have opposable thumbs; therefore, I concede the point."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Jason777, posted 12-28-2007 6:19 PM Jason777 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Jason777, posted 12-28-2007 7:23 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 4871 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 103 of 196 (444250)
12-28-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by molbiogirl
12-28-2007 6:58 PM


Re: Jason, you've been asked once.
Im sorry but i think you clearly see the cite is posted,one of many.Im also sorry about the opposable thumb thing too,but i think only evolutionist beleive that.You guys do think they make tools dont you?Anyway i wasnt aware of a rule6,Thank you for clarifying that and have a wonderful weekend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 6:58 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by molbiogirl, posted 12-28-2007 7:29 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 104 of 196 (444257)
12-28-2007 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Jason777
12-28-2007 7:23 PM


Re: Jason, you've been asked once.
Your cite says nothing about opposable big toes.
Again.
Either concede the point or provide a cite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Jason777, posted 12-28-2007 7:23 PM Jason777 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 105 of 196 (444273)
12-28-2007 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Jason777
12-28-2007 6:19 PM


I'm sorry but your link does not support your assertion that Australopithecus had opposable toes and it also looks like you don't realize that Australopithecus is a genus and that there were several species of Australopithecus.
Not only that but having opposable toes does not preclude being bipedal.
But even if it did, as I mentioned before it is yet more proof of a transitional critter, possibly not an ancestor but certainly a close cousin to Homo sapiens.
But the evidence is crystal clear for any scientist,australopithicus,homo habilis,and homo erectus all lived in the same regeion at the same time.
Again, so what? How does that in anyway disprove evolution?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Jason777, posted 12-28-2007 6:19 PM Jason777 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