Evolutionists, where are all the bodies?

originally posted by: RedParrotHead
It's funny that people can be so illogical with so much evidence. It is truly amazing. If evolution is a sham how does one explain this:
Snakes had legs

and that is only one example. Wait, don't answer all you Creationists because I know "God works in mysterious ways!"

Really, you asking us a question and then telling us we cant answer your question, thats absurd.

The answer is simple, tragically simple and with a few minutes of study you will find the reason snakes have claspers and pelvic bones
oh did I give it away, hope not.
You should learn to research before playing the silly goat.

Ignorance at its finest

U never let me down krazy

From wiki
One of the earliest formations of the cosmological argument in Islamic tradition comes from Al-Kindi (9th century), 

a reply to: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch
No its not your mythical strawman, your little security blanket strawman, it is how it was described and how I understood it.

Then you understood it incorrectly. Not really a problem in and of itself. You just have to be man enough to admit your mistake and listen to the people explaining it to you (or ask them to clarify better).

Rather than acting like a petulant child, that we all do around here from time to time, why dont you explain why I may have misunderstood the explanation?
To hard?

My great-grandmother is a direct ancestor to me, but she didn't give birth to me. Therefore it reasons that if the statement, "a creodont is a direct ancestor to a wold" is true then a creodont does NOT have to have given birth to a wolf. That is basic logic right there.

See your ancestor is human, you will be human.

Not necessarily. Homo Habilis is a direct ancestor to Homo Sapien Sapien (us). There are also several more species between Homo Habilis and us.

A creodont is not a canine, so where are the fossils between a creodont and a wolf, your imagination?

There is NEVER a definitive point where a species stops being one species and starts being another. It is a gradual process that takes MANY generations where at some point the descendants, if they lived alongside their ancestors, wouldn't be able to breed together. Pointing to a fossil that is literally half one species (creodont) and half another (canine) is quite impossible.

That's like asking someone to look at a color scale between the colors red and yellow and pick a point when the color stops being red and starts being yellow. Sure you could pick the exact halfway point on the color scale (since you have the whole scale in front of you), but if you were to see that color by itself, would you be able to say the same thing? No of course not. You'd either call it red or yellow or a completely new color (orange); but now you have to determine when the colors stop being red and start being orange. This process goes on infinitely. You'd know that categorizing when a species changes from one species to the next is literally the same thing if you'd bother to attempt to fully understand evolution. But you don't and won't.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: borntowatch

Because its not true. Dinosaur bones are rare compared to ancient humans and there is no such thing as a missing link.

There are more dinosaur bones in museums than bones that show human evolution.
If that statement isnt true then I would LOVE to see the progression from primate to human.
That in itself could end my belief in supernatural creation, the book of Genesis, then the bible alltogether.

Now understand this, I am not talking about ancient humans, I am talking pre humans.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Ok now you can stop believing in the bible.

i think that all the dead bodies are stored in ROM cos it's all a hologram apparently.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
Ignorance at its finest

U never let me down krazy

From wiki
One of the earliest formations of the cosmological argument in Islamic tradition comes from Al-Kindi (9th century), 

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's the only thing you respond to in that entire post? I mean that point is widely debatable (would you consider greeks postulating that fire, water, air, and earth being the four elements as the same as the table of elements?), but on top of that you COMPLETELY ignored the rest of the post that was relevant to the discussion at hand. Oh and by the way, the SAME wiki article says THIS about al-kindi:

Al-Kindi is one of the many major and first Islamic philosophers who attempt to introduce an argument for the existence of God based upon purely empirical premises. In fact, his chief contribution is the cosmological argument (dalil al-huduth) for the existence of God, in his On First Philosophy.

The Cosmological argument for the existence of God (dalil al-huduth) isn't the same as the Kalam cosmological argument. One may be based on the other, but that doesn't mean they are the same. But by all means, let's continue to discuss this irrelevant point and ignore the points I made about the Big Bang not being the creation of the universe and that you never provided any proof of what you are saying (just an echo chamber).

a reply to: borntowatch

The answer is simple, tragically simple and with a few minutes of study you will find the reason snakes have claspers and pelvic bones
oh did I give it away, hope not.
You should learn to research before playing the silly goat.

right, supposedly used by the male for clasping on or some unexplained/as yet understood sexual purpose...except females have them as well. Sorry, I heard that before and just don't agree...l prefer evidence rather than myth:

Then the Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this, you are cursed
more than all animals, domestic and wild.
You will crawl on your belly,
groveling in the dust as long as you live.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Opinion.
Why dont u guys do a little reading then come back and we will discuss the arguments put forth
O that right because yiu are antireligion
And geez that is why both sides just look stupid
Good day

Oh, I've done some reading, thanks. And I've studied some science. And I even try to spell correctly so as not to puncture my arguments as ignorant from the git-go. I even imagine that I have known about Behe longer than you have.

Evolution has been observed. Intelligent design is opinion.

a reply to: thedeadtruth

They shouldn't know about other countries. In fact, most of Chinese's history comes from one writer, and current archaeological studies. How could the Bible know so much about other countries? Did they just all carry the Bible or historical evidence along with them, and then make a Bible? In that case, the Middle East is much smarter than we give them credit for.

To me, the evidence is clear, the former Middle East Kingdoms, probably the descendants of Japheth, brought their history and knowledge into Europe, in the form of the Bible, and the current Middle East generations have been misled by a new prophet.

Also, remember the link I showed before about the Mongolians being Magog? Unfortunately, I can't find the link anymore, but here is the map. If you zoom in, you can clearly see that it says Magog in the top right corner:

As it turns out, Mongolians can trace their ancestry to Central Asia, which for all intents and purposes, means that they also came from the Middle East(well, we all came from the Middle East, so at this point, I don't know what the distinctions are). It seems to be consistent with the DNA-migration map here:

You cannot use the outward appearance from the people there because immigration from China and Russia probably skewed everything. If you go to Inner Mongolia, you'll probably find more people with "Chinese-appearance." If you go to Outer Mongolia, you'll find people with White appearance. Heck, you can even find White people with Chinese eyes. which is why you can only use DNA evidence of people who haven't mixed and are native Mongolians.

One thing we can at least conclude from all of this is that we are all immigrants, and it all happened only 5000-6000 years ago(or when history was recorded). Even the Japanese are really not natives, the Ainu are. Basically, people from 50,000 years ago have nothing to do with the current people. We all have a common ancestor, it's just a matter whether it's million years ago, or 6000 years ago, if that really should make a difference.

originally posted by: borntowatch


Seriously do you expect us to believe that a variety's of Canis Familiaris (Thanks WB) prove evolution like the poster above called Answer believes it does.
Prepared to comment, explain why we are wrong?

Evolution deniers always respond the way you have when presented with the dog variety conundrum.

Dog breeds show that extreme genetic changes can occur in a very short amount of time due to, in this case, forced selective pressure. The same thing occurs in nature at a much slower rate which is how, once the genetic changes are extreme enough, a new species is eventually formed.

The changes are gradual and it generally takes a verrrrrry long chain of subtle differences before you get into new species territory. You're asking for proof of a transitional species because you just don't get it. You're thinking with young-earth parameters where these changes didn't have millions of years to take place. No one bred two wolves and got a beagle so what makes you think a magical transitional skeleton exists that was the nice clean link between wolves and their ancestor? The changes were gradual and happened over millions of years so what scientists have is a fossil record showing slight changes over many generations to eventually get to what we know as a wolf. Just for the sake of information, it's now believed that the ancestor of the modern domesticated dog died out because the genetic makeup is so different from wolves.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

First, evolution hasn't been observed. Adaptation(or micro-evolution) is not macro-evolution. To extrapolate micro to macro-evolution is a slippery slope. Second, even if (macro-)evolution is true, you can't rule out that evolution is a process within the simulation. In other words, you can't rule out evolution was DESIGNED that way.

In other words, in order to rule out design, you not only have to prove that evolution happened or observed, you have to prove that evolution arose from completely random processes. You can't just say evolution happened, you have to show how an amoeba managed to obtain and store all of this code that most humans can't even remember, much less interpret them. In fact, that DNA premise shows that an amoeba is far more intelligent, or should I say intelligently-designed than we give them credit for, and is in fact, anti-science.

a reply to: borntowatch

Unfortunately, if you do not already have a grasp of chemistry or some basic premises in Physics, any attempt I make to explain the radiometric dating process is going to be met with "I don't trust it/don't understand it" and that is most unfortunate. However, I will recommend that you look into something called Dendrochronology. Dendrochronology is a limited form of dating for things in recent history but what makes it unique is that it can date something to the exact year. What is Dendrochronology? It is counting tree rings.

Trees have a growth season (spring and summer) and a rest season (fall and winter). During grow season, the spongy and white tree ring appears and it's thickness will determine what kind of season it was. During the rest season, the dark ring begins to grow in a tree and if the winter is long, you will see a thicker dark ring. Now, what helps to make this work so well is that all trees in an area will grow the same. If I cut a sample from one tree and walk thirty yards away to another tree and sample it, I will be able to match up their tree rings like a puzzle piece even if one tree is older than another because they grew and rested in the same period and same place. Now, if someone cut down a tree and used it for a building, I can take a slat, a door, piece of floor and look at the remaining tree rings and match those with the ones in the area.

There is a limitation because these can only date back up to 11,000 years because the oldest tree we've been able to use in this process had 22,000 rings. 11,000 years of growing. That one tree alone is not only proof of an Earth being older than 6,000 years, it also debunks a world wide flood because trees cannot survive 40 days of being submerged underwater.

a reply to: np6888

Actually, macro-evolution has been observed with the most famous example being the Bonobo ape that only appeared on our planet in the last century.

It is also observable in Nepal for those who live in high altitudes. Those pockets of human population have evolved unique adaptive traits that allow them to survive, function and thrive in an environment with low oxygen. It required 3,000 years, but they evolutionary different from us through this one adaptation.

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

First, evolution hasn't been observed. Adaptation(or micro-evolution) is not macro-evolution. To extrapolate micro to macro-evolution is a slippery slope. Second, even if (macro-)evolution is true, you can't rule out that evolution is a process within the simulation. In other words, you can't rule out evolution was DESIGNED that way.

No it isn't a slippery slope. One leads to the other. That is how it works. Enough micro changes happen and we call it macro evolution. Both micro and macro evolution are guided by the same processes.

You are correct that one cannot rule out that evolution was a designed process. But since there is no evidence for that being the case, you also shouldn't be making that determination either.

In other words, in order to rule out design, you not only have to prove that evolution happened or observed, you have to prove that evolution arose from completely random processes. You can't just say evolution happened, you have to show how an amoeba managed to obtain and store all of this code that most humans can't even remember, much less interpret them. In fact, that DNA premise shows that an amoeba is far more intelligent, or should I say intelligently-designed than we give them credit for, and is in fact, anti-science.

By that same token, in order to imply design, you have to prove that a designer exists.

Anti-science? What is that? A process that determines things without using the scientific method?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, it's a slippery slope. Until you can actually prove that dog breeding of successive generations will result in a new species, like cats, or at least ones that can no longer mate with their ancestors, you can't say evolution happened, otherwise, it's just variation of a species or dogs with different characteristics, no different than if two different races of humans mix and have different characteristics.

a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Can you show the link to that tree with 22,000 tree rings?

a reply to: np6888

Unfortunately, linking is not so easy. Most of the info and articles are on databases like JSTOR. However, there is Old Tjikko which is currently the world's oldest living tree at 9550 years old (over 19,000 tree rings!)

a reply to: np6888

J.R. Pilcher, M.G.L. Baillie, B. Schmidt, and B. Becker, "A 7,272-Year Tree-Ring Chronology for Western Europe," Nature 312 (1984) 150-52; and now Becker, "An 11,000-Year German Oak and Pine Dendrochronology for Radiocarbon Calibration," Radiocarbon 35 (1993) 201-13. For a recent archaeological application, which typifies the uses of the method, see B. Schmidt, H. Kohren-Jansen, and K. Freckmann, Kleine Hausgeschichte der Mosellandschaft (Cologne 1990).

Link to a pdf

a reply to: np6888

You don't know what a slippery slope is. A slippery slope is an argument where you say one thing will lead directly to a VERY extreme outcome. (ex: We shouldn't legalize drugs because if we do then everyone will be a drug user). In order for the description of events of micro leading to macro, you need to establish the extremitude of the relationship. Since the processes are the same for micro and macro evolution, logically it makes sense that one leads to the other.

Why don't you explain to me how the processes change so much that it would make macro evolution impossible but allow micro evolution to be true? Oh yeah there is also this study:
E. coli long-term evolution experiment

Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to use citric acid as a carbon source in an aerobic environment.[3]

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, it's a slippery slope. Until you can actually prove that dog breeding of successive generations will result in a new species, like cats, or at least ones that can no longer mate with their ancestors, you can't say evolution happened, otherwise, it's just variation of a species or dogs with different characteristics, no different than if two different races of humans mix and have different characteristics.

So if all the current species have been around since the beginning, where are the fossilized wolf, giraffe, elephant, buffalo, horse, etc. skeletons alongside dinosaurs and all the other extinct species?

I can use the same logic as you guys to disprove your own theory. If evolution is not a real process, all current species have always been around... therefore we should find ancient fossilized remains of all modern species. Why is that not the case?

You really need to study what the theory of evolution actually says before you make an assertion like "wolves don't evolve into cats so evolution is wrong". Is a tiger the same species as a lion? No. Do they have common ancestors? Yes. Can they breed and produce offspring? Yes but the offspring can not reproduce. It's the same with a horse and donkey producing a mule. So now you have clear examples of species branching off from a common ancestor and evolving to become 100% different. They can still reproduce, proving a common ancestor, but they're different enough that the offspring can't reproduce. Evolution is an ongoing process so in the next several million years, without a drastic environmental change, most species will look completely different than they do now as they further adapt through natural selection.