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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 38 of 2887 (767995)
09-04-2015 9:27 AM


My personal favorite is icthyosaurs and dolphins.

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 100 of 2887 (768703)
09-13-2015 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
09-12-2015 12:46 PM


If you got another explanation I would like to hear it.
Simple.
We don't know everything. Neither do you.
We have several tentative scientific possibilities.
And this has nothing to do with fossils.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 12:46 PM ICANT has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 101 of 2887 (768704)
09-13-2015 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by ICANT
09-12-2015 1:08 PM


We have to have a universe because No universe, no fossils.
The universe exists. Earth exists. Animals, including man, exist.
This is the obvious starting point for discussing fossils.
How those things came to exist is another topic.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 1:08 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by edge, posted 09-13-2015 10:55 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 284 of 2887 (774001)
12-12-2015 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Big_Al35
12-12-2015 6:05 AM


There's a widely known "square-cube" law. As size increases, the surface area goes up by the square of the change and the mass goes up by the cube of the change. "surface area" includes things like the cross-section, i.e. strength, of bones. So there is a point at which you just can't have that big a human with human anatomy and capable of standing up without breaking bones.
Figuring out how big that would be is probably not practical, but there is a limit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Big_Al35, posted 12-12-2015 6:05 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 285 of 2887 (774002)
12-12-2015 7:50 AM



Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by Big_Al35, posted 12-12-2015 11:27 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 309 of 2887 (774104)
12-13-2015 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by Big_Al35
12-13-2015 8:38 AM


Can't you see the double standards?
No, I can't. Please explain in detail how that's a double standard. Dawkins will give you references to the raw data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Big_Al35, posted 12-13-2015 8:38 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 359 of 2887 (775168)
12-29-2015 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Big_Al35
12-29-2015 10:34 AM


It is not obvious why what you have provided supports your position.
Please explain.
And, yes, it is your place to provide evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Big_Al35, posted 12-29-2015 10:34 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 380 of 2887 (775616)
01-03-2016 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Big_Al35
01-03-2016 5:53 AM


There are plenty of sites which mention giant tools. A proper study on the subject would at least discuss their authenticity but your omission is interesting. And if you claim to have an interest in paleontology or history or science then I am sure you would be aware of them.
Prove it. List those sites with references to the literature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Big_Al35, posted 01-03-2016 5:53 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 399 of 2887 (776080)
01-08-2016 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by Percy
01-08-2016 10:05 AM


Re: Image of Giant Human Skeleton Excavation
I posted this as a pretty obvious hoax. I don't think Al has posted any such images.
Claim: The skeleton of a giant human was uncovered during gas exploration in Saudi Arabia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Percy, posted 01-08-2016 10:05 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 475 of 2887 (822224)
10-21-2017 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by Dredge
10-20-2017 10:11 PM


The bet Darwin never suspected that the superstition of spontaneous generation would reappear in a different form - Punctuated Equilibrium.
Before posting such twaddle you should learn what "spontaneous generation" and "Punctuated Equilibrium" mean. They are not even close to meaning the same thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Dredge, posted 10-20-2017 10:11 PM Dredge has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 484 of 2887 (822394)
10-24-2017 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by Dredge
10-23-2017 11:23 PM


Re: Let me help
does a fish grow a foot overnight?
You have a real problem with English meanings. Gradualism in this context does not mean what you think.
gradualism:
quote:
In the natural sciences, gradualism is the theory which holds that profound change is the cumulative product of slow but continuous processes, often contrasted with catastrophism. The theory was proposed in 1795 by James Hutton, a Scottish geologist, and was later incorporated into Charles Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism. Tenets from both theories were applied to biology and formed the basis of early evolutionary theory.
Growing a foot overnight would be saltation.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Dredge, posted 10-23-2017 11:23 PM Dredge has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 542 of 2887 (824719)
12-02-2017 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by Dredge
12-02-2017 4:26 PM


The ol' "we don't know everything therefore we know nothing" PRATT.
Polls would be a good analogy. What percentage of the electorate gets polled? Of course the analogy breaks down when you consider how the samples are selected, and there is known bias in the fossils we have. But there is useful and verifiable information in what we have. Especially when you see the obvious nested hierarchy they form.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Dredge, posted 12-02-2017 4:26 PM Dredge has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 556 of 2887 (824797)
12-03-2017 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 548 by Dredge
12-03-2017 5:20 PM


It's Socratic teaching.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 548 by Dredge, posted 12-03-2017 5:20 PM Dredge has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 957 of 2887 (829052)
03-01-2018 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 956 by Percy
03-01-2018 8:02 PM


Re: Just a few pictures
You're right about that map. I was involved in a discussion of exactly that at at Talk Rational which I can't find now. I will look again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 956 by Percy, posted 03-01-2018 8:02 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 958 of 2887 (829053)
03-01-2018 9:13 PM


Ah: Geological Provincialism | The Institute for Creation Research
quote:
By the way, the rock layer called the Tapeats Sandstone is not restricted to Grand Canyon. The same rock layer in central Utah is known as the Tintic Quartzite; in northeastern Utah it is the Lodore Quartzite; in Wyoming and Montana it is the Flathead Sandstone; in Colorado it is the Sawatch Sandstone; in South Dakota it is the Deadwood Quartzite; in the Midwest it is the St. Simon Sandstone; in the Ozarks it is the Lamotte Sandstone; and in northern New York state it is the Potsdam Sandstone. The confusion of names should not obscure the fact that it is one continuous sandstone layer; the Potsdam Sandstone of the Northeast is unbelievably similar to the Tapeats Sandstone of Arizona, complete with the Great Unconformity at the base and worm burrows near the top!
Testy Explains the Layers Which Include the Tonto Group - Page 68:
quote:
Look at the formations you listed. Different depths, different compositions, some metamorphic. Obviously the same, right?

Replies to this message:
 Message 960 by Faith, posted 03-02-2018 12:37 AM JonF 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