|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
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!
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
JohF writes:
So organisms went from soft-bodies to hard-bodied with no fossil evidence? Dream on. And, given that soft bodies don't fossilize well, so what? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
DWise1 writes:
I’ve already answered that question. Stop your stupid lying and just answer the fucking 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1278 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.2
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1959 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.9
|
Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes:
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? So, you've got nothing, that's what I figured. You are stuck in 1859. Most fossils have been discovered since then. 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:
Your questions are unscientific in nature and not relevant to the thread. I note you didn't answer any of my questions from Message 510. 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:
It does, actually- PC predicts that there will be scientifically inexplicable gaps in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed by the evidence. Progressive Creation" has no predictive ability 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.9
|
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024