Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Evolution is Science, Creationists Delusional

page: 21
22
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





First of all, also organic material has been isolated from even dinosaur remains (proteins). Second, you acknowledge that the rock is indeed old, but why do you fail to realize that this implies that the fossil is at least as old as the rock it's formed from? I think even children are able to make such logical conclusions, but not you. No, it's beyond your intellectual abilities...


Nope - I did not "fail to realize that this implies that the fossil is at least as old as the rock it's formed from".

Two or three simple questions to clarify this:

1) Which came first - the rock layers or the organic remains (i.e.humanoid and animal remains - like bones)?

I'm sure you'll agree with me the rock layers since the earth is around 4 byo (depending of course on recycle times and the amount of radioactive isotopes in them).

2) Which one contained long-life isotopes and half-life isotopes?

I'm sure you'll agree with me, the rock layers since the earth is around 4 byo and the radioactive materials in them can last for millions of years. In fact potassium-argon isotopes are commonly found because of their long / half life. Potassium consists mostly of two isotopes with masses 39 and 41, but a third isotope, of mass 40 (half-life of 1.4 by), is weakly radioactive. When it decays, one of the product is Argon.

In contrast, as already mentioned --


“the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years


So when a bone get's bracketed inside rock layers by means of fossilization -

3) Which one get's dated or which isotopes gets picked up - the rock layer containing the "fossilized" remains or the actual organic material (which btw - already gone)?

I'll leave this to you to answer.

tc.




posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 

I guess you guys aren't familiar with Piltdown man? you can read about him on wiki and the lineage they were trying to prove (fake)

it's going to be hard to get this theist (or any creationist for that matter) to argue with you about this...

Creationist already believe you are very special and not just some random occurrence... most creationist place human life above all the species on the planet but then again most creationist value all life forms most of the time above their own even... it's just comes natural to us.

Creationist do not hesitate when it comes to protecting life... no matter the rank on the food chain.

an atheist is the coward who will walk right past another being mugged or raped... (just look at Richard Dawkins lol) it's possible they will call the report in though..

please please don't go after the dog
(must be a Dawkins fan?)

you don't want to accidentally step on one of these fellas...


it's my guess the military just doesn't have many atheists either
edit on 20-4-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
reply to post by Barcs
 

I guess you guys aren't familiar with Piltdown man? you can read about him on wiki and the lineage they were trying to prove (fake)

it's going to be hard to get this theist (or any creationist for that matter) to argue with you about this...

Creationist already believe you are very special and not just some random occurrence... most creationist place human life above all the species on the planet but then again most creationist value all life forms most of the time above their own even... it's just comes natural to us.

Creationist do not hesitate when it comes to protecting life... no matter the rank on the food chain.

an atheist is the coward who will walk right past another being mugged or raped... (just look at Richard Dawkins lol) it's possible they will call the report in though..

it's my guess the military just doesn't have many atheists either


Weak. Nobody cares about "piltdown" man. It was a hoax perpetrated by some scumbags trying to make money. It's a nice red herring, though. The science behind modern evolutionary synthesis is solid. It's hilarious how you think that creationism is the only way to live a moral empathetic life. You don't have to be a science hating fundamentalist or even believe in god to live a benevolent life. Have you ever heard of Buddhism?
edit on 20-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Here is a question for the OP. I'm convinced by the scientific evidence of how the Earth was made and the evolution process, but there is something that keeps bugging me...

At what time did a separation between plants and animals happen? is there any evidence of a plant/animal hybrid? This always puzzled me so please help me understand how the difference between plants and animals came to happen.


Im posting this again, because its a good question, that I haven't seen answered yet.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 

Who expressed immediate skepticism about the veracity of Piltdown Man?

Scientists.

Who exposed Piltdown Man as a hoax?

Scientists.

But by all means, keep trying to flog it as some kind of victory for the anti-science crowd.



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yoda411
Are you looking for a half-lizard half-mammal? The whole principal behind evolution is that these species developed along their own evolutionary tree. A lizard didn't just give birth to a hairy mammal one day.


So... you're saying that a HUUUUGE explosion happened out of nothing, in which DUST collided with DUST, formed planets, and somehow this dust also "evolved" into single cell organisms, which then somehow "evolved" into multi-cellular organisms, and then somehow branched off into Plants, Animals, & Humans?! That makes no sense without 1/3 Plant - 1/3 Lizard - 1/3 Mammal concoctions.

^^ This is also to say that the Environment "Evolved" with the freak-creature-concoctions, and provided just enough stimulus for them to have to adapt into the variants we have now without killing them off??? That's absolutely plausible [insert sarcasm].


Evolution is also responsible for the intricate web of symbiosis encompassing EVERY living thing, down to the tiniest organism? Go do some searching on "cleaning symbiosis" and read up.


Evolution is responsible for Humans?! Isn't the point of Evolution to adapt to a more suitable form/function in our environment? Right there is a reason Evolution is a gimmick. We [humans] are completely helpless at birth, our whole lives are easily influenced by our upbringing and care, and we are easily killed off at a young age. Cockroaches are far more cut out to use as an example for Evolution. At least you could say they live in any environment and are pretty much guaranteed to survive a nuclear fallout. lol


To think that everything came from dust and a 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [continued...] chance is 100% ridiculous.


BTW, Radio-Carbon dating is a joke. You could Carbon Date my brand new shoes and they would be 3Billion years old.

edit on 4/20/2012 by 4REVOLUTION because: Forgot the Environment Part...



posted on Apr, 20 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 

I still think you're special...


I suspect the theist didn't care about Piltdown either way because it still really doesn't explain anything.

you also seem to think I denounce science... man where are you from with that black and white view of yours?

I love science! I can't wait to board the Starship Enterprise...

Evolutionist on the other hand are just boring and this section of the forum is rather worthless


the Creationist still hold the ball in this category imo...
edit on 20-4-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
evolution and science are both based upon a set of beliefs just like any religon.

See Newtons theory of Gravity if you have any problems understanding the concept

The only perfect science is math. 1 + 1 will always equal two.

One evolutionist plus one creationist will almost alays result in both sides making retarded unfounded claims based upon belief passed off as fact...


What a load. Scientific theories are based on facts that can be observed, tested and falsified. Creation is based on faith. They aren't even close to the same. It's funny how so many people resort to this nonsensical type of thinking. Stop blindly following fundamentalist websites. Learn for yourself.


I have learnt for myself. teslas unified theory of dynamic gravity is a testament to wrong science can get it. Maybe you should do some more study...



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by 4REVOLUTION
 


This shows how little about evolution you actually know.

It is just like a theist to completely dismiss a counter claim without doing any research whatsoever!

"God did it" must be the answer, because we all know THAT isn't silly!



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Things in science must be falsifiable. That's all.



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
Things in science must be falsifiable. That's all.

Are you implying theory of evolution isn't? All you need to do is to show one fossil that is completely out of place, e.g. 100 million year old rabbit, and TADA, the theory of evolution is falsified unless we invoke time travel



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4REVOLUTION
So... you're saying that a HUUUUGE explosion happened out of nothing, in which DUST collided with DUST, formed planets, and somehow this dust also "evolved" into single cell organisms, which then somehow "evolved" into multi-cellular organisms, and then somehow branched off into Plants, Animals, & Humans?! That makes no sense without 1/3 Plant - 1/3 Lizard - 1/3 Mammal concoctions.


Time for you to take an evolution class, or maybe even a basic biology class would help. Not one single creationist argument ever used can prove any part of the process of evolution incorrect or wrong. The science is strong. Everything creationists bring up is deceptive points made by dishonest creationist sites, such as your abysmal understanding of the several methods of dating.


Isn't the point of Evolution to adapt to a more suitable form/function in our environment? Right there is a reason Evolution is a gimmick.


Evolution isn't a proper noun, and no, it's about adapting to the environment. Suitable is a relative term. Human intelligence is our primary survival mechanism and we are the smartest creatures on the planet. If that isn't well adapted, I don't know what is. We gotten so smart that physical traits are no longer as important. We are smart enough to know how to protect ourselves without the need for claws or thick leathery skin. We are smart enough to realize our babies need care. But then again, would a baby kangaroo be able to just survive on its own, instantly? Many babies cannot. Some mothers have to constantly defend their children from predators. They aren't just left for dead after birth. Your arguments have no bearing on reality.


To think that everything came from dust and a 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [continued...] chance is 100% ridiculous.


To think god made everything from dust and a 1:10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance is 100% ridiculous.
Like seriously, what are the mathematical odds of a creator that just happened to always exist and create everything from nothing. That makes sense right?



I love science! I can't wait to board the Starship Enterprise...

Yeah totally. It sounds like you know a lot about it.


I have learnt for myself. teslas unified theory of dynamic gravity is a testament to wrong science can get it. Maybe you should do some more study...

Maybe you should provide a source and show me how it shows that scientific theories are not based on facts. Theories are not entirely facts, they contain hypotheses which are still being worked on. Obviously you can't say an entire theory is 100% proven, but facts are facts and they speak for themselves. Peer reviewed experiments don't lie.

edit on 21-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 4REVOLUTION
 





So... you're saying that a HUUUUGE explosion happened out of nothing, in which DUST collided with DUST, formed planets,


^^^ has nothing to do with evolution





and somehow this dust also "evolved" into single cell organisms, which then somehow "evolved" into multi-cellular organisms,


Now you're talking about ABIOGENESIS, a hypothesis.




and then somehow branched off into Plants, Animals, & Humans?! That makes no sense without 1/3 Plant - 1/3 Lizard - 1/3 Mammal concoctions.


Now you're talking about evolution...and they're not saying it happened those different species evolved "somehow", they show you exactly how. They are even using the theory in modern medicine to predict future outcomes...if it were false, we wouldn't have many of the meds we have today.




Evolution is also responsible for the intricate web of symbiosis encompassing EVERY living thing, down to the tiniest organism?


Correct.




Evolution is responsible for Humans?!


Correct...although evolution isn't the cause, it's the process leading to humans.




Isn't the point of Evolution to adapt to a more suitable form/function in our environment? Right there is a reason Evolution is a gimmick. We [humans] are completely helpless at birth, our whole lives are easily influenced by our upbringing and care, and we are easily killed off at a young age.


And most animals are completely helpless at birth too, especially mammals. And for our environment, we are actually quite well adapted thanks to our brains.

You have a brain that allows you to build traps to hunt down a Rhino...you make up for your weaker muscles and power. A lion's brain isn't as powerful, but it doesn't need to be because his muscles and power totally make up for it. A lion doesn't need a trap, he just goes nots on the Rhino himself.

The only difference? Our brain power gives us the flexibility to settle at a lot of different spots.




Cockroaches are far more cut out to use as an example for Evolution. At least you could say they live in any environment and are pretty much guaranteed to survive a nuclear fallout. lol


Cockroaches are better adapted to THEIR ENVIRONMENT than us.




To think that everything came from dust and a 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [continued...] chance is 100% ridiculous.



Again...that would be the hypothesis of abiogenesis...and not the theory of evolution. Having said that, scientists aren't saying it happened because of "chance". For crying out loud, we already know that RNA can assemble spontaneously. It's not a theory yet like evolution, but it's already got waaaay more evidence behind it than creationism.




BTW, Radio-Carbon dating is a joke. You could Carbon Date my brand new shoes and they would be 3Billion years old.


The error margin of carbon dating is around 1% even back billions of years. So please, before you type more nonsense, do at least a bit of research



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by hudsonhawk69
evolution and science are both based upon a set of beliefs just like any religon.

See Newtons theory of Gravity if you have any problems understanding the concept

The only perfect science is math. 1 + 1 will always equal two.

One evolutionist plus one creationist will almost alays result in both sides making retarded unfounded claims based upon belief passed off as fact...


What a load. Scientific theories are based on facts that can be observed, tested and falsified. Creation is based on faith. They aren't even close to the same. It's funny how so many people resort to this nonsensical type of thinking. Stop blindly following fundamentalist websites. Learn for yourself.


I have learnt for myself. teslas unified theory of dynamic gravity is a testament to wrong science can get it. Maybe you should do some more study...


Do I really have to list how many times the bible has been proven to be wrong???



posted on Apr, 21 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by vasaga
Things in science must be falsifiable. That's all.

Are you implying theory of evolution isn't? All you need to do is to show one fossil that is completely out of place, e.g. 100 million year old rabbit, and TADA, the theory of evolution is falsified unless we invoke time travel
Yeah.. Or they suddenly push back the origin of mammals back a few hundred million years.. You make it sound so easy, but that's not how it works in practice.. They use fossils for the fossil record (obviously), so if something is out of place, they simply change the so-called 'tree' to fit the so-called evidence better...

Aside from that, the word evolution suffers from equivocation.
edit on 21-4-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
Yeah.. Or they suddenly push back the origin of mammals back a few hundred million years.. You make it sound so easy, but that's not how it works in practice.. They use fossils for the fossil record (obviously), so if something is out of place, they simply change the so-called 'tree' to fit the so-called evidence better...

Aside from that, the word evolution suffers from equivocation.


You always make statements like this, as if it were true, but never back anything up. Please give examples of equivocation, in the theory of evolution. Our dating methods have around a 1% error margin. Dates will always get pushed back as new fossils are found. That won't push the date back hundreds of millions of years for all mammals, however. Dates are based on the information we DO have, not what we don't. Estimated dates are minor compared to the rest of the evidence for evolution.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Please give examples of equivocation, in the theory of evolution.
That is not what I stated. I said that the word evolution suffers from equivocation. You're requesting examples for something I did not state. In any case, what I meant is, well, let's take the Wikipedia definition of equivocation;

Equivocation is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time.

When people talk about evolution, they never say what they're referring to.. The fossil record/tree of life? Common descent? Change over time? The mechanisms? All of those..? The problem is that when people give a counter argument about for example the fossil record, people jump to the mechanics & natural selection. When someone brings in a counterargument regarding natural selection, people then jump to common descent to counter back and so on. And at all times, the word evolution is used for all of those different aspects. It's like a whole party of drunk people not knowing what the hell they're talking about.

It's kind of funny really, because rhinoceros gave that comment regarding that single out of place fossil to 'disprove' the tree of life, but if such a fossil is actually found, then all the rest, like natural selection and change over time etc are still in place, and people can still go on about screaming how evolution is a so-called fact.

And if you actually want such fossils/anomalies, I suggest you pick up the book forbidden archaeology by Michael Cremo.. But of course, that book will undoubtedly be considered 'unscientific' among this community.
edit on 22-4-2012 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
So now we're down to attacking the theory based on semantics?



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
So now we're down to attacking the theory based on semantics?


When you don't understand the science, attack the language and pretend you can bring down the whole house of cards. It's the last refuge of people who don't know what they're talking about.
edit on 4/23/2012 by HappyBunny because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
So you are talking about equivocation as a logical fallacy, but only quote the first line of the wiki? I assume that's the usage you are referring to.


Fallacious reasoning

Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but it is not true that all feathers are "bright"), this type of equivocation is actually an example of the fallacy of four terms.


I have never seen an evolutionary biologist or evolution supporter on this site use logic like that to describe evolution. It suffers from equivocation on here because creationists have no idea what it means on the most basic levels.


Originally posted by vasaga
When people talk about evolution, they never say what they're referring to.. The fossil record/tree of life? Common descent? Change over time? The mechanisms? All of those..? The problem is that when people give a counter argument about for example the fossil record, people jump to the mechanics & natural selection. When someone brings in a counterargument regarding natural selection, people then jump to common descent to counter back and so on. And at all times, the word evolution is used for all of those different aspects. It's like a whole party of drunk people not knowing what the hell they're talking about.

It depends whether people are referring to the biological process or the theory of evolution. It can also mean the layman's term for "change over time" that can apply to almost everything. Apparently you don't even know equivocation is because what you are describing has absolutely nothing to do with it. The bottom line is that all of the above is evidence for evolution,
and 99% of the time when an argument is brought up against it, it is based on ignorance and general misunderstandings about it. I haven't seen anybody change the subject from the fossil record to natural selection or from natural selection to genetics. You are quite confused if you actually believe that. The truth is that equivocation is constantly used to justify ID, for example the information theory and computer information code nonsense, where the claim is that since information is seen as a code in a computer program, that it is the same in DNA, which is far from reality. Creationists constantly use poor logic like that and claim it proves a designer.


It's kind of funny really, because rhinoceros gave that comment regarding that single out of place fossil to 'disprove' the tree of life, but if such a fossil is actually found, then all the rest, like natural selection and change over time etc are still in place, and people can still go on about screaming how evolution is a so-called fact.
The process of evolution (genetic changes sorted by natural selection) IS a fact. Our methods of dating fossils ARE factual. Common decent is a slam dunk in genetics. Not a single one of those concepts is wrong. Your viewpoint constantly misunderstands the theory and process of evolution. It is not equivocation. That is laughable. Tangible scientific evidence is not the same as misunderstanding terms. That is what creationists do.





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join