It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Man and Dinosaures co-exist?

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
Past performance is no ....err...nm. Different subject. :p

Radioactive decay happens at a constant rate, there is no way of speeding it up or down.




Originally posted by jake1997
and the results are tossed out as meaningless because they do not fit the desired result.

Wrong, change desired result to mathematical result. You also deliberately left away that the initial assumptions are reasonable for some techniques.



For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable. For example:
K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals. This assumption can be tested by looking for argon in low-potassium minerals (such as quartz), which would not contain substantial argon daughter products. 40Ar/39Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can also identify the presence of initial excess argon.
The concordia method is used on minerals, mostly zircon, that reject lead as they crystalize.
Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of carbon-14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived. This varies somewhat, but calibration with other techniques (such as dendrochronology) allows the variations to be corrected.
Fission-track dating assumes that newly solidified minerals will not have fission tracks in them.




posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   


I think Evolution Cruncher may be an Expert999 reincarnation and nominate him for banning since he starts his old behviour again of deliberately disseminating false information.


we have already established this a long time ago. I am not expert999. I know who it is, we happed to share the same interest. but im not that person. anyways.

you didnt respond to my post. dont avoid it if you think you have a valid argument.


EC



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
That again is a belief that is your religion. You have to believe that the elements can evolve and as far as I know, the evolutionists believe that all 92 elements are the same throughout the universe. How do they know that they aren’t the same throughout the universe?

That's not "evolutionists", that's quantum physicists which is a quite different field. That you dispute every field of science or scientists whenever something doesn't quite fit with your preciousss bible just shows what a dishonest person you are. It is such backwards attitudes that held back science for centuries.



Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
But now we have a problem. Stars have the energy and the process of fusion to form higher elements, but you need the elements to make the stars first.

All you need is hydrogen which is not a higher element nor formed by fusion. Star formation from dust clouds is further observed throughout the galaxy. Further, the higher elements past iron aren't made by fusion processes but by neutron capture and eventual subsequent decay.



Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
You also believe that life can spontaneously generate from non-living material. This has never been observed, or demonstrated. It has been tested many times but the tests seem to have failed every time, therefore its not scientific

What has been observed is that the basic elements of life, some amino acids etcetera, were formed, so it is a valid hypothesis and is scientific.



Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
And the last thing the evolutionist believes is that organisms can slowly evolve into something other than their kind. No one has ever observed this, its not testable and also not demonstrable.

Speciation has been observed, tested and demonstrated.



Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
you didnt respond to my post. dont avoid it if you think you have a valid argument.

Well, I'll try once but my strong suspicions are that just like Expert999 you will be both dishonest, refuse to address what you can't refute and use diversion tactics by adding the next batch of baloney to refute.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   


That's not "evolutionists", that's quantum physicists which is a quite different field. That you dispute every field of science or scientists whenever something doesn't quite fit with your preciousss bible just shows what a dishonest person you are. It is such backwards attitudes that held back science for centuries.


christians held back science for centuries? I find that hard to believe when alomst all the fields of science were started by christians. the MRI was invented by a christian. Gatorade was invented by a christian. many things that have to do with science have been started by christians.



All you need is hydrogen which is not a higher element nor formed by fusion. Star formation from dust clouds is further observed throughout the galaxy. Further, the higher elements past iron aren't made by fusion processes but by neutron capture and eventual subsequent decay.


star formation has never been observed. hydrogen can from a dust could that can form a star when in the in beginning at the time of the big bang, matter didnt even exist? so nothing can explode/expand, and form hydrogen that formed all of the stars in the universe?
also
decay will not make something better. that is like the same argument about vestigal organs. "yeah we are losing parts, thats how we got them all" thats not even logical. so what you are saying is that the other elements decayed and evolved into the elements into what we have today? right?
hey but I actually do agree with you on the fusion and iron part. you cant fuse past iron, even Dr Hovind knows that (I guess its good he knows at least something)
but im still not understanding this. all you need is hydrogen from a big bang, and all 92 elements can form from hydrogen by means of fusion and neutron capture and decay? id like to point out again that decay only explains how things break down. it does not explain how things formed.



What has been observed is that the basic elements of life, some amino acids etcetera, were formed, so it is a valid hypothesis and is scientific.


the experiments that I am aware of have only produced amino acids along with a toxic mixture that was filtered and altered. for example, miller and urey did their experiment and get a mixture that was 2% amino acids and 98% toxic. the 98% was comprzed of two things: tar and arcylic acid. that is not a success, but they filtered it out (which is not natural) and also exxluded oxygen, which is understandable, because if they did have oxygen, the product would oxidize. and that cant happen. notice they didnt use water either, why? becuase the amino acids dont bond very well in water. also notice that they used amonia which is a gas, well without O2 you cant have O3 and with O3 amonia cannot exist because UV light destroys amonia. UV light destroys a lot of things including life.




Speciation has been observed, tested and demonstrated.


if you mean what I think you mean, I agree. you can get a big dog, little dog, wolf, fox, straight hair, curley hair. but you will always get a dog. this is what I mean by changing to a different kind. change from a non-dog to a dog or a dog to a non-dog has never been observed. if you call it speciation and clarrify what you mean by speciation, i will probably agree. but if you think that a bacteria slowly turned into a fish and then a turtle and then a monkey and then a human (something like that, not exact) but if you believe that, you are taking a huge leap in faith. if you belive that bacteria can ultimately evolve into a human over millions of years, you are taking that by faith and not by science. science has never observed a human coming from a monkey or something other than a human. science has never seen anything produce anything other than its KIND.
kind and species are two different things, the best way I can explain it is this way (thnk computer), a KIND is like the network address and the species is like the node address ( im sure you know a little bit about computers and networking). im not sure if you get my point with that analogy.
you can have many different species within the same kind. (horse and a zebra are the same kind but different species). but you cannot take one species from one kind and a species from another kind and expect to get anything from the two.
I hope you understand this whole kind/species deal, most people dont get it.

like I said before the only evolution that has been observed, tested and demonstrated is micro evolution. its just a variation and the bible has no problem with micro evolution. species can change over time, but the changes are limited.

simon666 did you even bother to read post 1601302? did you read it carefully and try to understand it? or did you just assume that since I am a creationist that i am automatically wrong? thats what the trend seems to be. read that post and get back to me with an answer, ill be waiting.


EC



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
christians held back science for centuries?

When they found the findings threatening to what they were teaching, damn right. Michael Servetus and Giordano Bruno burned at the stake, Galileo was lucky to get off with house arrest and many only wanted their works published after their death for fear of prosecution, which also hampered the free exchange and development of ideas



Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
star formation has never been observed.

A few thousand scientists at NASA and other institutions beg to differ and have sufficient evidence for it.



Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
decay will not make something better.

Well there is a statement that shows just how scientific your ramblings are. Radioactive decay of elements ultimately brings them back to non radioactive elements, which is most certainly an improvement.



Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
hey but I actually do agree with you on the fusion and iron part. you cant fuse past iron, even Dr Hovind knows that (I guess its good he knows at least something)

Hovind is a proven fraudster.



Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
id like to point out again that decay only explains how things break down. it does not explain how things formed.

This shows that all you know about decay is basically the principal dictionary definition of deterioration.



Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
notice they didnt use water either, why? becuase the amino acids dont bond very well in water.

Well, I was under the impression that our cells contains numerous amino acids and most of our body mass is comprised of water. Are you saying that life as it is, is impossible? UV light can't destroy life where UV light can't reach, that is just below a thin layer of surface and a few meter under the water surface. Since that is where life is presumed to have originated, the UV light argument doesn't prove anything either way.



Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
if you mean what I think you mean, I agree. you can get a big dog, little dog, wolf, fox, straight hair, curley hair. but you will always get a dog. this is what I mean by changing to a different kind. change from a non-dog to a dog or a dog to a non-dog has never been observed.

That's just because higher animals have longer reproduction times. The examples given demonstrate that it is a scientific possibility.



Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
science has never seen anything produce anything other than its KIND.

That's just because your definition of kind is arbitrarily chosen so that you could say it has not been observed. If scientists would be able to produce from a dog a foxlike creature for example you'd change your definition of kind to canidae, once that would be feasible to carnivora, eutheria and mammalia. Fact is that speciation has been observed, tested and demonstrated. That it is not done or seen yet for dogs is solely a matter of time, not of feasibility.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher



I think Evolution Cruncher may be an Expert999 reincarnation and nominate him for banning since he starts his old behviour again of deliberately disseminating false information.


we have already established this a long time ago. I am not expert999. I know who it is, we happed to share the same interest. but im not that person. anyways.


I should hope you know banned member expert999 and share similar interests since you have identical ISPs.


Now, as to this "we" you speak of having established two distinct identities long ago... they're both you right?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   


you can have many different species within the same kind. (horse and a zebra are the same kind but different species). but you cannot take one species from one kind and a species from another kind and expect to get anything from the two.
I hope you understand this whole kind/species deal, most people dont get it.

Well they might not get it when you explain. Someone with not even a basic grasp of science doesn't make the best teacher.

Why don't you do even a teeny bit of research and reading on biology and taxonomy so that we can understand what the hell you are on about. Here is the taxonomy of your precious zebra:

Animal #5 - (zebra)
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vetebrata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Perissodactyla

At least this is one version, there are others. Which bit are you referring to when you say "kind"?



like I said before the only evolution that has been observed, tested and demonstrated is micro evolution. its just a variation and the bible has no problem with micro evolution.

I wasn't aware there was any mention of any kind of evolution in the bible. Does it have anything else of scientific use? Cell biology? Quantum physics?

And God said LET THERE BE MICRO-EVOLUTION! BUT NOT SPECIATION AS THAT'S NOT CHRISTIAN, OR SOMETHING.



species can change over time, but the changes are limited.

Any they are limited because......?



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   
FatherLukeDuke I have asked that several times. I even looked in more then type of bible but nope no where does it say

"God created everything perfect, then he used micro-evolution to change things, but macro-evolution is evil and death to anyone who question us. Damn it I said stop asking questions!! SHut up! Lalalala, I can't hear you!"

Anyways have a good day, you have been voted for WATS when I post this.



posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   
if you want to know who expert999 is, look at the thread titled noahs ark and dinosaurs on the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7.

here is the thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



"God created everything perfect, then he used micro-evolution to change things, but macro-evolution is evil and death to anyone who question us. Damn it I said stop asking questions!! SHut up! Lalalala, I can't hear you!"


well if you look in the bible where it says that God said it was very good. what does that tell you. it was pretty much perfect.
and how bad would that suck to have every single dog look exactly alike. same hair type, same hair color, same everything. that would not be too cool. now apply that to all of the other animals. it wouldnt be too colorful.
now if you applied that to humans, we wouldnt be different from eachother. we would all look like copies of eachother.
an african-american and a chinese man, and a samoan/philipino along withi the germans along with the eskimos and the white people and whoever else is out there. are all humans. are those all different species? I mean they have different skin colors. im not trying to be racist and I hope no one takes it that way. but if I showed you 5 differenty cows and they all had different skin colors, does that mean that they are different races?




Any they are limited because......?


well they just are, you tell me how there are not limited by scientific evidence and we will talk about that.




At least this is one version, there are others. Which bit are you referring to when you say "kind"?


im refering to the general category it falls under (not this version you are talking about, rather what the bible is talking about) a horse and the zebra are the same kind of animal. they are interfertile. a horse and a cow are not the same kind of animal. and dog and a wolf are the same kind of animal, a dog and a cat are not. you get it? if you really dont get it, send me a U2U, ill help, and im being serious.



I wasn't aware there was any mention of any kind of evolution in the bible. Does it have anything else of scientific use? Cell biology? Quantum physics?

And God said LET THERE BE MICRO-EVOLUTION! BUT NOT SPECIATION AS THAT'S NOT CHRISTIAN, OR SOMETHING.


well I never said that evolution was in the bible. and if I did, I didnt mean to make it sound like the bible said. what was meant to be was was this; micro evolution is not a process that will change a bacteria into a human over millions of years, macro evolution is. if you use the phrase "they will bring forth after their kind" and you understand that phrase, you will understand that only if two animals are the same, then they can bring forth. this phrase also means that they will bring forth the same kind that they are. if you put a horse and a zebra together you may bet a brown horse with some weird looking stripes. doesnt mean its a different kind, its still a horse kind. a zebra is a horse kind. a cow is not a horse kind. a cow is a totally different kind of animal. micro evolution is not mentioned in the bible, but the bible does not disagree with it. the day a dog produces a non-dog, of some other animal produces something other than its kind, I will believe in evolution. but until then my faith rests in the bible.




Well, I was under the impression that our cells contains numerous amino acids and most of our body mass is comprised of water. Are you saying that life as it is, is impossible? UV light can't destroy life where UV light can't reach, that is just below a thin layer of surface and a few meter under the water surface. Since that is where life is presumed to have originated, the UV light argument doesn't prove anything either way.


dude, look at the bigger picture, the cell is already formed. the cell already exists. and life cannot form with oxygen , the product will oxydize. thats why miller and urey took out oxygen.
how exactly would life form in compacted dirt? its hard enough for some bugs to burrow their way through the dirt as it is. so how do little amino acids crawl through the dirt and get together, and then they have to find something to eat. life forming by itself has a very low chance and they cant even do it in the lab. how is it even possible that it happened by chance somewhere under a bunch of dirt under a bunch of water? well if you add billions of years, it makes it sound more believable. but im not buying it.




Well there is a statement that shows just how scientific your ramblings are. Radioactive decay of elements ultimately brings them back to non radioactive elements, which is most certainly an improvement.


oh how you want to talk about radioactive decay? I thought I always changed the topic....hm
radioactive decay does breakdown and turns something into something else. like potassium decays and slowly turns to argon (gas). but that doesnt explain how it was formed before it decayed. thats what I was getting at. [radioactive decay makes new elements, that shows how the elements formed in the first place] yeah ok.




A few thousand scientists at NASA and other institutions beg to differ and have sufficient evidence for it.

and what exactly is this evidence? spots that appear to be in dust clouds that appear to be getting brighter? that is no evidence that is a wild guess. the dust cloud could be clearing and there could be a star behind it.

im tired, im off to bed soon.

EC



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   
It's easy to defend an idea as simple as Creationism. God created this, God created that, blah blah blah....A single book shapes your entire view of the world, its origins and its meaning.

It's also easy to poke holes in incomplete, imperfect theories that try and explain how life evolved. Evolution and modern science is very young, and I think people forget that.

It remains that evolution is based on FACT (not belief, EC), and it is accepted as such by the reputable scientific community. Creationism is about faith, and may be important to an individual; but it does not explain what actually occured and what is continuously occuring in nature. Science - though itself evolves with introduction of new evidence - does...



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   


It remains that evolution is based on FACT (not belief, EC)


so its a fact that bacteria can ultimately evolve into humans over time?
or that life can spontaneously generate?

note that these have never been proven, they are also taken by faith.

EC



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
im refering to the general category it falls under (not this version you are talking about, rather what the bible is talking about) a horse and the zebra are the same kind of animal. they are interfertile. a horse and a cow are not the same kind of animal. and dog and a wolf are the same kind of animal, a dog and a cat are not. you get it? if you really dont get it, send me a U2U, ill help, and im being serious.

Horse and donkeys are "interfertile" as well, they can produce offspring, although that offspring will be sterile due to a different number of chromosomes. Man and the great apes are according to many scientists interfertile as well. Are you finally admitting that even according to your precious bible man and apes have a common ancestor as they are the same kind?



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 07:40 AM
link   


Man and the great apes are according to many scientists interfertile as well.


has that ever been demonstrated? im sure that they have just looked that the chromosomes. but have they actually tried to get a man and an ape together to produce offspring?

and you say according to most scientists... do you know that for a fact that its most scientists?


EC



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I said many, not most. And it has never been demonstrated, but I sure hope it will - despite ethical considerations - just to bug some hardcore creationists. Should come as a shock to them if that ever gets done.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher



It remains that evolution is based on FACT (not belief, EC)


so its a fact that bacteria can ultimately evolve into humans over time?
or that life can spontaneously generate?

note that these have never been proven, they are also taken by faith.

EC


ok my tuppenny`s worth

Evolution exist`s in everything and all that we do and everything and all that has cells..even religons have evolved( i was like you once..take a look at my avatar..but if the church didnt change its way of thinking it would now be some underground nut club(like scientology:lol
the earth was flat..how many were burned for that thought process that turned out to be right..we are the centre of the universe..it could probably go on))evolution exist`s..its a fact..if christianity didnt change/evolve it would not be here now.
the message is good..i still live by it and always will..but i am willing to open my mind and accept many different ideas if they are more understood/scientific than just an assumption in faith

1 more question.
are you a believer in the thoery that the cambrian explosion was the creation moment??



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Evolution Cruncher
dude either you are ignorant or you are lying. the sun is shrinking. that is a fact.

Please read the links I gave on that subject.
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
here's another one
www.asa3.org...

The rate of solar shrinkage suggested by Eddy and Boornazian was disputed from the outset. In the same month that Eddy and Boornazian's preliminary report was presented, S. Sofia, J. O'Keefe, J. R. Lesh and A. S. Endal published an article in Science which expressed the judgment that, on the basis of available data (mostly from meridian transit observations), the sun's angular diameter did not diminish by more than 0.5 are second 6 between 1850 and 1937.6 This value was less than one-fourth the rate proposed by Eddy and Boornazian.


This, in fact, is one of the ones that you cite as demonstrating that the sun is shrinking.

Recall, Kent Hovind is a liar.


The discrepancy between these results and the report by Eddy and Boornazian called for a second look at the solar meridian transit data. John H. Parkinson, Leslie V. Morrison and F. Richard Stephenson performed such a re-evaluation and concluded that the trends in the Greenwich data reported by Eddy and Boornazian "are the result of instrumental and observational defects rather than real changes



Parkinson, for example, in a 1983 paper, states that solar eclipse and Mercury transit measurements "confirm that there is no evidence for any secular changes in the solar diameter, with a reduced upper limit.



and so what if that is a creationists logic, if its scientific, than its scientific. debunking just because ones belief and support of that belief, should not be a determining factor.

Personal beleif has nothing to do with it from teh evolutionist-scientist's side. It is all that there is on the other side. I understand that you have faith that the bible is literally true, but even if it was, that still does not mean that the sun is shrinking nor that Kent Hovind isn't a liar.


I think that the only reason evolutionists refute limiting factors such as; the suns size and shrinkage, carbon 14 in the atmosphere and the magnetic field losing strength is because if they included those, evolution would not be true becasue without millions of years, the theory looks very stupid.

No one cares if evolution is true, by that I mean, if its true, wonderful, if its an inaccurate theory that is refuted tommrrow, wonderful.
Radio-isotopic dating works.
The Earth's Magnetic field cycles thru polar shifts and this results in weakening and strengthening periods.
The Sun is not shrinking, certainly not at '5 feet a day' or whatever.


what about mokele bmembe? that is described as a dinosaur.

No, mokele membe is not described as a dinosaur. What happens is that when the researchers went to the tribes that reported this monster, they showed them picture cards. One was of a sauropod. They said 'mokele membe'. Others showed them rhinos, hippo, any big animal. "Mokele Membe, Mokele Membe!' is the response.

Mokele Membe is just a monster. ALong with dragons and the rest. THey're just big monsters, you don't need to have seen dinosaurs to have stories about big scaly monsters. Besides which, from what we know about dinosaurs, they probably wouldn't, infact, be described in the ways that dragons and most of these monsters are described as. Dinosaurs, apparently, are extremely birdlike, and, very importantly, lots of them had plumaceous, featherlike, coverings, which these dragons don't. Hell, lots of them had outright bird feathers.

like I asked you before. do you know for a fact that dinosaurs went extinct 65 millions years ago, or is that what you believe

DO you know for a fact that there was an american revolution, or is that something that you beleive in? Can you demonstrate that it wasn't the invention of history teachers who needed something interesting to teach?

so whats your proof?

You've been presented it a few times now. You seem to simply reject it out of hand, indeed, thats precisely what you say you do, you beleive, via faith, in a literal interpretation of the bible. Not everyone needs to have 'faith' to understand these sorts of things. Evolution is a science, just like chemistry, physics, geology, mechanics, and the rest of it. Do we have 'proof' that dinosaurs died out 65 mya? Well, hell, no more than we have proof that they existed at all, those fossils could be denied in any number of ways, and evidence can be irrationally denied.


science is knowledge gained by observation, testing and demonstrating.
notice that nowhere in there was the word assumption

Its flat out incorrect to state that if there are any assumptions then you aren't doing science. If the assumptions are unreasonable, illogical, irrational, and clung to because of personal beleife, yeah, sure, then you're not doing science anymore. The assumptions involved in radiometric dating are quite reasonable, and there are some tests that do infact seem to show that the assumptions are accurate, like how radio-carbon dating can be confirmed by the tree ring record, or how all the methods can independantly confirm one another.

[quiote]Evolution is based off of belief[...]have to believe that bacteria turned into humans ofer millions of years. and you also have to believe that animals can change from on kind to another kind of animal.
Evolution is an observation of the natural world; populations evolve. The hypothesis that man is from a lineage that ultimately includes bacteria is just that, an hypothesis, and a very well supported one at that. But its not a 'fact'. It might be a fact, but we have no way to know that it is. We can only hypothesize about things like phylogeny. This is the definition of science. Science is theory. And as far as 'beleiving' that animals change into other kinds of animals, they do, and its been observed. Speciation has been oberserved. There is a barrier upon populations that holds species togther (its actually mechanisms like gene flow and the like). That barrier can be observed, hypothesized about, and overcome. There is no limit beyond that. There is no barrier that seperates different 'kinds' of animals, like between cats and dogs. There are only species, and species are mutable, changable; they evolve.


you believe a lot of things and its ok to believe them, but they are not science and they are not evidence for any kind of science.

Simply because you ignore the evidence does not mean it will go away.

the only kind of evolution we have ever observed is micro evolution

This is completely incorrect, both 'macro and micro' evolution have been observed. 'macro' evolution is simply changes "at and above" the species level, speciation is 'macro' evolution. Speciation has been observed in the wild and in labs. Before they were observed, lots of creationists insisted that speciation itself couldn't happen, they couldn't explain why it shouldn't happen, and the biologists could explain why, indeed, it should. Then it was observed in the wild, and that pretty much ended it. Now we often hear the same complaint, but transfered to 'kinds' of animals. Problem is, there are no kinds, and no one's been able to offer, just like with the speication issue, a reason for why change like that can't occur, and indeed, biolgists have been able to state that, indeed, it can occur.

Evolution is a religion. you have to believe that it all happened, there is no way to know, no way to observe, no way to test, and no way to demonstrate

This is like saying chemistry is a religion. We can't observe the structure of the chemicals, we can only indirectly infer, thru 'beleif' and theories, that they have any particular arrangment or go thru any transitional stages.

so is my theory (belief) but I admit mine is a theory.

You're ideas are not theories. They do not match the criteria of a theory. A theory is not a beleif, you seem to be conflating the two things. They are strictly different. A Theory is just an hypothesis that has stood up to testing for a subjective length of time, and an hypothesis is an attempted rational explanation of patterns and things observed in the natural world that is potentially refuteable. Creationism is not something that comes up from observing nature; no bible, no creationism. And creationism is not refutable, its a faith-based beleif. No matter what evidence, divine miracles can be, and are allways, offered to 'get around' them. For example, there is not enough water on earth to cover everything. SO the miralces of magically appearing water is proffered, or if thats no good than the land is said to be completely flat, and to have magically erupted into mountains and continents after the flood, and of course another miracle is invoked to explain where the miracle water went and why it dissapeared.

I would have to agree that over half of the scientists believe in darwinian evolution (about 55% last time I checked

About Half the population of the US does/doesn't accept evolution. The vast majority of scietist accept it, and there is no serious debate in the scientific community over its occurance. Amoung biologists and evolutionary theorists, there is lively debate over the specific phylogenies, and some of the mechanisms invovled, and all sorts of things, but not wether or not it occurs. Even amoung IDists, who are a tiny, unscientific, uninvolved minority within science, its accepted that man evolved from apes, and that what creationists call 'inter-kind' evolution occurs.


No one has ever observed this, its not testable and also not demonstrable. No one has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog and no one has ever seen a dog come from a non-dog.

There are no barriers that prevent it, short of the amount of time that would be invovled. And, coincientally enough, when the time barrier is removed, via the fossil record, we see transitions between types of organisms, things that are on the way to being dogs and cats, birds, and mammals. Its precisely what the theory predicts.

many things that have to do with science have been started by christians.

Lets just be realistic here for a moment, because its a good point. Science is bascially a european invention. I don't think it makes too much sense to too forcfully call it a christian invention. Science really gets going during the Rennaissance and the Enlightenment. The REnnaissance is kicekd off from rediscovering classical, pagan, science texts (indeed, the pagan greeks and romans more or less invented science, but thats a technical subject in some ways). Christianity was around for a long, long time before christians were scientists. The Enlightenment was able to progress at the time that it did because the christian churches were weak, and couldn't interfere with science.
It is, afterall, called the Age of Reason, not the Age of Christianity.
Also, you state that most sciences were started by christians.

Do you know who the people were who built up the age dating system called the 'geological column' were? Christians. Pre-Darwin, Pre-evolution, Christians. And they overwhelmingly supported the idea that the earth was millions of years old, upon looking at the evidence. They didn't let the bible cut-off their rational organs and stop their research.

As an aside, there was a school of 'science' called 'Natural Theology', this was where people, usually presists in fact ( I suppose it was easy to study nature if you had that much free time and no livelyhood, mendel was a monk recall) studied nature, and tried to make nature and thelogy coincide. Thus they made detailed studies of nature, which was good, great infact, but they also attributed things like adaptation to Divine Benevolence; god made bees so that flowers could be pollinated. They missed natural selection, completely. Thankfully Darwin figured it out.


star formation has never been observed.

Gravitons have never been observed. Hell, even protons and electrons can't be observed, we have to have machines that 'tell' us that they are there. Infact, no one has ever observed anything that occured before they were born, but I'd be a bit loopy if I insisted that Kennedy and Washington 'weren't provable'.


decay will not make something better. that is like the same argument about vestigal organs. "yeah we are losing parts, thats how we got them all" thats not even logical.

This arguement was presented to Darwin over a hundred years ago and his book answers it. It is hardly a serious challenge to evolutionary biology.


all you need is hydrogen from a big bang, and all 92 elements can form from hydrogen by means of fusion and neutron capture and decay? id like to point out again that decay only explains how things break down. it does not explain how things formed.

If something breaks into two different peices, and then one peice mixes with something else, have you not had creation via decay? You wouldn't call it that, not use such a strange forumulation, but that it was is happening in the formation of heavier elements from the decay of H and He.
This is pretty basic.


I hope you understand this whole kind/species deal, most people dont get it.

I think that you are the one who doesn't get it. Species exist. They are mutable, they have been observed to change and become new species. There is no such thing as a 'kind'. It simply does not exist. A dog is not a 'kind'. There is no 'dog-kind' out there in the world holding itself together, preventing some small and freakish population of strongly adapted 'dogs' from evolving into something 'non-doglike'. There is no cut-off to 'dogs'.
Whats more, when you do try to define a set of animals (above the species level), you get some rather arbitrary traits, and you can see that there is no reason why those traits have to be fixed. One could, for example, be tempted to say that 'Bird-kind' exists, and that its defining trait is feathers. But then you find that feathers are just small little traits that are completely open to evolutionary change. And when you look at the fossil record, you see that, indeed, there are things that are clearly not birds, but that do have feathers. And things that are just like that that have less evolved feathers. And then when you look at the genetic development of birds alive today, you find that their feathers develop by having certain genes switched on in order, and that that order (if you stop at any point in the sequence), results in 'feathers' that are just like the more primitive, and less evolved, feathers in the earlier parts of the fossil record.
So you again have a morphological and a genetic confirmation of this evolution, from distinctly 'not-bird', to 'definitly bird', and smooth transitions between it. The only requirement that is lacking in the modern world, so that humans can observe it, is simply time. There's no limit to the changes, given time (and selective pressure of course, but all that can be observed in the modern wild world).

note that these have never been proven, they are also taken by faith.

You would have to refute that evolution occurs in order to say that bacteria can't become men, basically. Given evolution, then you can have these things. We don't know what the specific phylogeny was tho. Its a theory that man ultimately descends from unicellular organisms, it can' tbe proven, it can't be said to be a fact. But at the same time, the evidence strongly supports it. If the evidence of mechanics, physyics, and chemistry strongly supports that a gun will go off and fire a bullet if I pull the trigger, I don't need to actually do it to find out that it will go off.


but have they actually tried to get a man and an ape together to produce offspring?

This has never happened, no.


simon666
think Evolution Cruncher may be an Expert999 reincarnation and nominate him for banning since he starts

Please drop such a pointless line of speculation. I have already given out warns today for that type of thing. Administration and Moderation, along with the Council, watches out for that sort of thing, membership doesn't need to, and certainly we don't permit members to suggest who gets banned around here. EC is participating in the discussion, I feel that he/she is ignoring some important points, but he is participating fairly. Expert999 didn't participate, that poster merely regurgitated stuff from kent hovind, of all people, and ended up having a meltdown, and even trying to 'break' back into the group. And for what, I have to wonder? To what prupose? This is a discussion group, not a soapbox, people can plainly see when somoeone is just prostelytizing and not discussing and they don't like it. Its pointless.

Anyway, we'll handle any violations of the TC and such. Please don't speculate as to the membership, but rather try to address the points of other posters in a respectful and thoughtout manner.



brianptx03
But there is a point when circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and theories become accepted fact.

This is not correct. Theories never become facts. They are allways theories, they can allways, potentially, be refuted. A discovery might be made tommorow that shows clearly that man evolved from squirrels, not primates. Its entirely possible. I wouldn't bet on it, but science has nothing to do with what you'd bet on. But nothing is going to change the fact that populations of organisms change over time. Thats why one hears about the "fact" of evolution and also the "theory" of evolution. They are two different things. The Fact is, evolution occurs, populations change, we can observe this. The Theory is that this occurs thru a mechanism of natural selection and that it leads to speciation and adaptation. That could be completely wrong. Its potentially falsifiable, and we can test for that theory and attempt to refute it.
Thats what scientists do, they try to refute scientific hypotheses; they don't try to prove them. They can't be proven.

Nothing can be proven or disproven because it's entirely in the human mind.

If you think about it, everything occurs within the human mind. All sensations, all understanding of the 'natural world', are gathered thru the sense organs, translated into electrical-nervous impulses, and then processed in the brain (and spine, considering reflexes). Everything you 'know' is a construct of your brain, whether its religion or science.
One of the big differences is what you can do about it. You can have faith in allah, reincarnation, Jesus as Saviour, the cult of ancestors, or anything, and it makes a difference for you personally. But no matter who you pray to, if a fucntional nuclear bomb is set off, everyone gets vapourized, irrespective of beleifs about Atomic Theory.



jake1997
There is two.

Assumptions? Yes, they're not about the intial concentrations tho. Please explain what evidence indicates that they are poor assumptions, and please explain why, hypothetically assuming that they are poor assumptions, these Isochron methods independantly confirm and jive with all the other dating methods?? If someone weird is going on and the concentrations are all whacked, then they're not going to be in agreement.


Faith in evolution requires belief that this system is fact, when it can be clearly seen it is not.

Its not clear to me. Please explain why that method is false.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
im not sure if thsi response is going to be considered a direct response to the last post.

how come all the sites that you use are correct?
it seems to be that all the sites I refer to are wrong, according to you.
what makes KentHovind a liar?

why is it impossible for dinosaurs to have existed with man?

a lot of things were taught in the past as fact and are now proven wrong.
I think that is where the evolution theory is going. I think that it is a wrong.

let me ask you all something about Dr Hovind.
Why is it that when he debates professors and other "scientists", the people he debates never have a rebuttle that sounds convincing? howcome he always makes them look stupid? I only have 4 debates on tape, but all of them are won by Dr Hovind. he may not be right, but his opponents can never come up with an explanation as to why and how things are the way they are.
they never come up with a good explanation.

Hovind may be a liar to you all. but he certain doesnt look like one in front of a crowd, especially when he is debating someone on the subject of which they speak.

EC



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
how come all the sites that you use are correct?

It just works out that way.


what makes KentHovind a liar?

His statements and the fact that he knows that they are wrong.

why is it impossible for dinosaurs to have existed with man?

Its not phyiscally immpossible, its just that the evidence precludes it.

I think that is where the evolution theory is going. I think that it is a wrong.
But you'd get better chances on the lotto.


Why is it that when he debates professors and other "scientists", the people he debates never have a rebuttle that sounds convincing?

Kent Hovind has been defeated repeatedly in his debates. Check the facts on what he's talking about and what the other guy is saying and you will see that hovid is pretty darned clueless.

I only have 4 debates on tape, but all of them are won by Dr Hovind.

I've never seen hovind win a debate. Who are the debators in these 4??

he may not be right, but his opponents can never come up with an explanation as to why and how things are the way they are.

???

I wouldn't expect someone, in a debate on evolution versus creationism, to explain how everything that ever is and was came into being, and I wouldn't accept 'god did it' as a sufficiently descriptive answer.

Hovind may be a liar to you all.

Personally, I think he's a liar. He's said enough stuff thats wrong too many times to simply be a dolt. And the fact that he's a tax criminal seems to reinforce that.

Actually, the records in his tax case show that, over the course of a single year, he deposited over a million dollars into multiple bank accounts. And yet, I've seen him claim that he doesn't make much money off of his tapes and his business partnership with jack chick. So I guess that reinforces it too.

but he certain doesnt look like one in front of a crowd, especially when he is debating someone on the subject of which they speak.

A lot of people, for some odd reason, think hovind is a good debator. Apparently he's got stock responses prepared and tends to make a silly joke out of everything, and audiences tend to like it. I dunno, i'd say that there is a bit more to debate than that. Hovind also refuses to debate in an online or written format. Thats because a spoken debate is something he can participate in like its one of his videos. Basically, he's a little bit of flash, and no substance. Hovind wouldn't dare, for example, participate in one of our ATS Debates.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   
I think that the reason people might think that Hovind "stumps the panel" is that he uses the old trick of beginning with a false assumption and then telling so many lies that encompass so many different subject areas that nobody can quite figure out where to begin in refuting him.

Listen to Rush Limbaugh - he uses the same techniques and he is absolutely masterful at them!

Then Hovind (and Limbaugh) will demand that someone give a specific answer to something that he knows is impossible to answer truthfully because they are questions to which nobody actually knows the answer yet.

It's like the dimbulbs who say "isn't it true that evolution is just a theory and can't be proven?" Well, duh! "You just hate Christians don't you! Do I look like a monkey to you? Do you honestly think my grandfather was an ape?" Those are questions but they don't belong in a debate - they belong in a fight between 9-year-old boys on a school playground.

Thus, Hovind's reluctance to engage in any kind of debate in which he cannot use his quick-hitting, retort style of argument to entangle a scientist whom, by profession, is not an expert public speaker. If those two were to go at it like academics usually do - by exchanging written responses, Hovind would be proven to be the "missing link" himself. Especially if you've looked at his so-called "dissertation" which is of approximately the same quality as a book report by a middle schooler.

My question is this: how did the people who are dumb enough to send Hovind money, ever get any money in the first place? Now that, is what I call a miracle!



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   


Personally, I think he's a liar. He's said enough stuff thats wrong too many times to simply be a dolt. And the fact that he's a tax criminal seems to reinforce that.


actually I have done a little research on this tax deal. there are certain codes to follow in paying taxes. and either the code applies to him or it doesnt and so it happens that he is actually taking the time to apply these codes and ending up not having to pay taxes for what things or events he doesnt participate in.

when does Hovind have time to debate anyone online? he is always traveling. there is no possible way for him to be emailing people and debating on forums like this one.

The opponents on these four takes are all professors, college professors.
and they all look pretty dumb whenever hovind debates them. ill be getting some more of these videos here soon.

I guess we will never agree on hovind. but let me leave you with this question. this is for anyone.

In order to make a drawing of something that existed but was never seen, what needs to be done in order to make an accurate drawing?

EC







 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join