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.

 

Evolution, It's only a theory

page: 26
65
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by B.A.C.
No, it's called "The Law of Gravity"


You are confused.
Yes there is A "Law of Gravity" - the inverse square law that states :
F ~ 1 / d^2
(Gravitational force is proportional to the inverse of distance squared. Laws are typically used for simple mathematical relatioonships like this one.)

But this "Law of Gravity" is not the "Theory of Gravity" after it graduated from theory to law .
No. It does not work that way.

Gravity is fact, and there is a Theory to explain those facts, (and there is also a Law of Gravity which describes one specific issue.)

Note well - there is still a Theory of Gravity - in fact there are two :
* Newton's Theory of Gravity - fine for most things
* Einstein's Theory of Gravity - accurate to the finest detail



Originally posted by B.A.C.
And yes we do know how it works.


We know how gravity operates, we know the Law of Gravity accurately describes attraction, and we have two theories that explain the details.

But strictly speaking we do not know how it actually works in detail - we haven't found a gravity wave or graviton particle yet.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Look it up.


Very funny coming from someone who can't be bothered actually looking anything up for themselves. Anyone who had spent any time studying these subjects would not make these glaring errors you do.



Kapyong




posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by JPhish
Evolution is only a theory.


Oh dear.
Another person who doesn't even understand the terms.


THEORY has 2 meanings

It is all too common for people to confuse the two meanings of the word "theory".

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation".

But,
in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.


Theories EXPLAIN facts

Theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.



the ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.


Yet
some people say
"evolution is (just) a theory"

as if it means
"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false)

when it really only means
"evolution is an explanation, or model" (true)


Claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates lack of understanding of the word, and how science operates, and that the ToE is an explanation for observed facts.


Kapyong



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by B.A.C.
No, it's called "The Law of Gravity"


You are confused.
Yes there is A "Law of Gravity" - the inverse square law that states :
F ~ 1 / d^2
(Gravitational force is proportional to the inverse of distance squared. Laws are typically used for simple mathematical relatioonships like this one.)

But this "Law of Gravity" is not the "Theory of Gravity" after it graduated from theory to law .
No. It does not work that way.

Gravity is fact, and there is a Theory to explain those facts, (and there is also a Law of Gravity which describes one specific issue.)

Note well - there is still a Theory of Gravity - in fact there are two :
* Newton's Theory of Gravity - fine for most things
* Einstein's Theory of Gravity - accurate to the finest detail



Originally posted by B.A.C.
And yes we do know how it works.


We know how gravity operates, we know the Law of Gravity accurately describes attraction, and we have two theories that explain the details.

But strictly speaking we do not know how it actually works in detail - we haven't found a gravity wave or graviton particle yet.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Look it up.


Very funny coming from someone who can't be bothered actually looking anything up for themselves. Anyone who had spent any time studying these subjects would not make these glaring errors you do.



Kapyong


No one said Gravitational Theory graduated to The Law of Gravity.
The Theory explains the law, I'm well aware of that.

Did you just say you don't know how gravity actually works in detail?

You do know how evolution works in detail though? Give me a break.

Just admit it's not fact and you'll never hear from me again.

Or does your pride stop you from doing that?

Here I'll go first.

I can say i don't believe creationism is fact. I can't prove it.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Gday,

So you quote some definitions, including the one in bold :


Originally posted by ReelView
This is a good theory that evolution is "theory" therefore fact. It is a good example of how the Illuminati sucker and brainwash people into rationalizing nonsense. Here are some standard definitions of "Theory".
---------------------
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
...
7. guess or conjecture.



Then you dishonestly conclude :


Originally posted by ReelView
Note than synonymous with the word "Theory" is "Hypothesis" what is not synonymous with the word "Theory" is "Proof".


See?
You IGNORED the ACTUAL definition of "explanation for phenonena" which mentioned Relativity.

Instead you focussed on the WRONG definition.
How dishonest and misleading.

This is all creationist have to support their beliefs - silly word games.


Kapyong



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by John Matrix
All of the exact same evidence fits much more reasonably into the creation model than it does the evolution model. It's also more logical.


No it doesn't.
Creationism is completely at variance with the observed facts.
It is an illogical mish-mash of bronze age myths.



Originally posted by John Matrix
Evolution requires far too much blind faith. Evolution defies logic, reason, and the will of the Creator(cause) and his effect(creation: the Universe and life in it).


Evolution requires no faith at all.
It just requires one to look at the evidence.
Which creationist won't.


Kapyong



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by Gregarious
I don't have the time nor desire to read all this post, so maybe someone addressed this already. You come across fairly persuasive, articulate, and well educated. So why do you ignore the Second LAW of Thermodynamics? EVERYTHING goes from an ordered state, to a disordered state. Also, The Theory of Evolution is, by scientifically adopted standards, NOT a theory, but a POSTULATE. There is not enough evidence to go beyond that to a theory.


Nonsense.
There is overwhelming evidence.
Creationist just refuse to even look.



Originally posted by Gregarious
Darwin, on his death-bed, recognized this and felt terrible for starting such a load of potash.


No he didn't.
This is well-known lie.
It is false.
It was made up by Lady Hope
www.talkorigins.org...
But it never happened.

Sadly,
creationists are quite happy to repeat a proven lie to support their claims, no matter how many times the facts are given.



Kapyong



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by lunarminer
That is why evolution is a theory and not the LAW OF EVOLUTION.


Wrong.
Sigh.


THEORY has 2 meanings

It is all too common for people to confuse the two meanings of the word "theory".

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation".

But,
in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.


Theories EXPLAIN facts

Theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.



the ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.


Yet
some people say
"evolution is (just) a theory"

as if it means
"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false)

when it really only means
"evolution is an explanation, or model" (true)


Claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates lack of understanding of the word, and how science operates, and that the ToE is an explanation for observed facts.



Kapyong



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by Gregarious
I don't have the time nor desire to read all this post, so maybe someone addressed this already. You come across fairly persuasive, articulate, and well educated. So why do you ignore the Second LAW of Thermodynamics? EVERYTHING goes from an ordered state, to a disordered state. Also, The Theory of Evolution is, by scientifically adopted standards, NOT a theory, but a POSTULATE. There is not enough evidence to go beyond that to a theory.


Nonsense.
There is overwhelming evidence.
Creationist just refuse to even look.



Originally posted by Gregarious
Darwin, on his death-bed, recognized this and felt terrible for starting such a load of potash.


No he didn't.
This is well-known lie.
It is false.
It was made up by Lady Hope
www.talkorigins.org...
But it never happened.

Sadly,
creationists are quite happy to repeat a proven lie to support their claims, no matter how many times the facts are given.



Kapyong


Overwhelming evidence doesn't make facts.

Why won't you admit this? Pathetic.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by lunarminer
That is why evolution is a theory and not the LAW OF EVOLUTION.


Wrong.
Sigh.


THEORY has 2 meanings

It is all too common for people to confuse the two meanings of the word "theory".

In popular terms, "theory" means a guess, or speculation. Thus the common phrase "just a theory" meaning "just speculation".

But,
in scientific terms, there is another, different, meaning to the word "theory" - it means an EXPLANATION.


Theories EXPLAIN facts

Theories explain the facts we observe :

Gravity is a fact, we observe its effects.
Gravitational Theory describes how gravity works.

Electricity is a fact, we use it everyday.
Electromagnetic Theory explains the details of how it operates.

Germs are a fact.
Germ Theory explains how they cause disease.

Evolution is a fact, it is observed.
The Theory of Evolution explains how it works.



the ToE is an EXPLANATION, NOT speculation

The Theory of Evolution is NOT "speculation about evolution" - that is NOT what the phrase means at all.

Rather -
the Theory of Evolution is the EXPLANATION for how evolution works, it models the behaviour of the FACTS of evolution, and allows predictions to be made.

Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Germ Theory is the explanation or model of how germs cause disease.
Would one say "germs are just a theory" ?
Of course not.


Yet
some people say
"evolution is (just) a theory"

as if it means
"evolution is merely untested speculation" (false)

when it really only means
"evolution is an explanation, or model" (true)


Claiming "evolution is just a theory" indicates lack of understanding of the word, and how science operates, and that the ToE is an explanation for observed facts.



Kapyong


If you think creationist won't admit to anything, you are twice as bad. LMAO



Just as Electromagnetic Theory is the explanation or model of how electricity works.
Would one say "electricity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.

And Gravitational Theory is the explanation or model of how gravity works.
Would one say "gravity is just a theory" ?
Of course not.


You're right of course no one would say they are just theories, why? Because they have LAWS to back them up.

You're nonsensical and hilarious at the same time.

You are right about Lady Hope though, that's a myth.




[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


Kapyong, nearly everything you've said in the last 3 posts is so mislead that i don't even know where to begin. So please, choose any of your claims, and i will attempt to show you the error of your ways.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by andre18
 



Such as? I would really like to know what fakes and hoaxes you are referring to.


________________

Human Ancestral Frauds

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!


Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.


Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)


Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)


Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings
-
The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. . (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)

Now there is a complete series of in_utro pictures that proves this entire concept was a complete fabrication.
____________


This is just for starters. I could post many, many more proven frauds!

Like:
www.omniology.com...

Not that any of this is going to change your closed mind, however the frauds perpetrated by Evolutionist for over a hundred years is extremely well known and continues to this day. Perhaps I should try and find the New York Times article that talks about all the infamous and most embarrassing Evolutionary frauds. I will see what I can find.


--Charles Marcello





[edit on 4-3-2009 by littlebunny]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by B.A.C.
I know a fair bit about evolution. A lot of what you call evolution, I call adaptation.


You can call it what you like. But you are wrong.
Individuals adapt, they do not evolve. Populations evolve.
You do not even understand the most basic concepts of evolution.
Yet you pontificate like an expert, when everyone can see you have never once studied evolution at all.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
BTW I don't go to church, and I don't think I've ever read a pamphlet.


Then WHERE are you getting your ideas from?
Seriously?

You show no knowledge of evolution, and all your claims are straight out of the creationist play book.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Just admit that the theory of evolution has holes in it, or gaps if you prefer.


But what does this even MEAN?
Does it mean there are things we still don't know?
Of course there are!
No-one has ever said any different.
There are many many questions about how evolution works.
So what?

Would you say these :
Just admit that the theory of gravity has holes in it, or gaps if you prefer.
Just admit that quantum theory has holes in it, or gaps if you prefer.
?
See the problem ?

There are many many questions about how gravity works.
There are many many questions about how nuclear reactions work.
So what?

But that does NOT mean gravity is not true.
It does NOT mean nuclear reactions do not exist.
It does NOT mean evolution isn't a fact.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
I can't believe it unless I get a full picture, and science doesn't have a full picture of it. Anyone who says they do is sadly mistaken, or so caught up in proving people wrong they will say anything.


Sure, we do NOT know 100%
But that does NOT make it false, anymore than not knowing everything about gravity makes gravity false.
It's your argument is completely false here.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Address the problem of the eye, in one of my previous posts, if you can answer that, you may sway me a little (one less gap in the theory). But let's face it, science can't answer it, so how can you?


You must be JOKING ?!
Are you actually SERIOUS ?

Creationists have been using this argument for OVER A HUNDRED years and it was shown wrong way back then !
But creationists STILL make this silly argument.
Incredible.

Because science HAS answered it !
Over and over and over and over !
Which you would know if you had EVER read ONE book on evolution.

There are NUMEROUS examples of the evolution of different types of eyes in the animal kingdom. Clear and present evidence of evolution of the eye, multiple times, in different ways.

But you refused to look at the evidence, remember?
Talk Origins has all this, but you refused point-blank to even LOOK at the evidence there.

Talk Origins is chock-full of sciency goodness.
It is written by a scientist, an expert in the field - it is full of accurate scientific information directly gathered from scientific experiments and observations. It has excerpts of the actual science, and many links to the actual scientific papers.


It has all the scientific evidence for evolution, specifically written for the educated layman.

And what was B.A.C.'s response?

He REFUSES to even LOOK, because he says it is 'not science'.

A more perfect example of a closed mind could not be imagined.

B.A.C. won't look at Talk Origins because it DOES have science - in the form of overwhelming evidence for evolution.


Kapyong



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by littlebunny
reply to post by andre18
 



Such as? I would really like to know what fakes and hoaxes you are referring to.


________________

Human Ancestral Frauds

Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!


Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.


Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)


Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)


Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

Haekel’s faked embryonic drawings
-
The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human fetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist. . (source: Russell Grigg, "Fraud Rediscovered", Creation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.49-51)

Now there is a complete series of in_utro pictures that proves this entire concept was a complete fabrication.
____________


This is just for starters. I could post many, many more proven frauds!

Like:
www.omniology.com...

Not that any of this is going to change your closed mind, however the frauds perpetrated by Evolutionist for over a hundred years is extremely well known and continues to this day. Perhaps I should try and find the New York Times article that talks about all the infamous and most embarrassing Evolutionary frauds. I will see what I can find.


--Charles Marcello





[edit on 4-3-2009 by littlebunny]


That's nothing compared to the frauds perpetrated by the evolutionists on this thread.

Interesting stuff.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by B.A.C.
I know a fair bit about evolution. A lot of what you call evolution, I call adaptation.


You can call it what you like. But you are wrong.
Individuals adapt, they do not evolve. Populations evolve.
You do not even understand the most basic concepts of evolution.
Yet you pontificate like an expert, when everyone can see you have never once studied evolution at all.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
BTW I don't go to church, and I don't think I've ever read a pamphlet.


Then WHERE are you getting your ideas from?
Seriously?

You show no knowledge of evolution, and all your claims are straight out of the creationist play book.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Just admit that the theory of evolution has holes in it, or gaps if you prefer.


But what does this even MEAN?
Does it mean there are things we still don't know?
Of course there are!
No-one has ever said any different.
There are many many questions about how evolution works.
So what?

Would you say these :
Just admit that the theory of gravity has holes in it, or gaps if you prefer.
Just admit that quantum theory has holes in it, or gaps if you prefer.
?
See the problem ?

There are many many questions about how gravity works.
There are many many questions about how nuclear reactions work.
So what?

But that does NOT mean gravity is not true.
It does NOT mean nuclear reactions do not exist.
It does NOT mean evolution isn't a fact.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
I can't believe it unless I get a full picture, and science doesn't have a full picture of it. Anyone who says they do is sadly mistaken, or so caught up in proving people wrong they will say anything.


Sure, we do NOT know 100%
But that does NOT make it false, anymore than not knowing everything about gravity makes gravity false.
It's your argument is completely false here.



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Address the problem of the eye, in one of my previous posts, if you can answer that, you may sway me a little (one less gap in the theory). But let's face it, science can't answer it, so how can you?


You must be JOKING ?!
Are you actually SERIOUS ?

Creationists have been using this argument for OVER A HUNDRED years and it was shown wrong way back then !
But creationists STILL make this silly argument.
Incredible.

Because science HAS answered it !
Over and over and over and over !
Which you would know if you had EVER read ONE book on evolution.

There are NUMEROUS examples of the evolution of different types of eyes in the animal kingdom. Clear and present evidence of evolution of the eye, multiple times, in different ways.

But you refused to look at the evidence, remember?
Talk Origins has all this, but you refused point-blank to even LOOK at the evidence there.

Talk Origins is chock-full of sciency goodness.
It is written by a scientist, an expert in the field - it is full of accurate scientific information directly gathered from scientific experiments and observations. It has excerpts of the actual science, and many links to the actual scientific papers.


It has all the scientific evidence for evolution, specifically written for the educated layman.

And what was B.A.C.'s response?

He REFUSES to even LOOK, because he says it is 'not science'.

A more perfect example of a closed mind could not be imagined.

B.A.C. won't look at Talk Origins because it DOES have science - in the form of overwhelming evidence for evolution.


Kapyong


You can't respond to anything directly. You keep dragging up 2 day old posts that have already been addressed.

If there are things you don't know, then how can you present it as fact? You make no sense at all.

Ignore.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 



____

***** From Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial, East Sussex, England: Monarch Publications, 1994, British edition, pp. 34-35:

The more pressing difficulty [of Darwin's theory of evolution] was theoretical. Many organs require an intricate combination of complex parts to perform their functions. The eye and the wing are the most common illustrations, but it would be misleading to give the impression that either is a special case; human and animal bodies are literally packed with similar marvels. How can such things be built up by "infinitesimally small inherited variations, each profitable to the preserved being?" The first step towards a new function--such as vision or ability to fly--would not necessarily provide any advantage unless the other parts required for the function appeared at the same time. As an analogy, imagine a medieval alchemist producing by chance a silicon microchip; in the absence of a supporting computer technology the prodigious invention would be useless and he would throw it away.

Stephen Jay Gould asked himself "the excellent question, What good is 5 percent of an eye?," and speculated that the first eye parts might have been useful for something other than sight. Richard Dawkins responded that

An ancient animal with 5 percent of an eye might indeed have used it for something other than sight, but it seems to me as likely that it used it for 5 percent vision. . . .
The fallacy in that argument is that "5 percent of any eye" is not the same thing as "5 percent of normal vision." For an animal to have any useful vision at all, many complex parts must be working together. Even a complete eye is useless unless it belongs to a creature with the mental and neural capacity to make use of the information by doing something that furthers survival or reproduction. What we have to imagine is a chance mutation that provides this complex capacity all at once, at a level of utility sufficient to give the creature an advantage in producing offspring.

Dawkins went on to restate Darwin's answer to the eye conundrum, pointing out that there is a plausible series of intermediate eye-designs among living animals. Some single-celled animals have a light-sensitive spot with a little pigment screen behind it, and in some many-celled animals a similar arrangement is set in a cup, which gives improved direction-finding capability. The ancient nautilus has a pinhole eye with no lens, the squid's eye adds the lens, and so on. None of these different types of eyes are thought to have evolved from any of the others, however, because they involve different types of structures rather than a series of similar structures growing in complexity.

If the eye evolved at all, it evolved many times. Ernst Mayr writes that the eye must have evolved independently at least 40 times, a circumstance which suggests to him that "a highly complicated organ can evolve repeatedly and convergently when advantageous, provided such evolution is at all probable." But then why did the many primitive eye forms that are still with us never evolve into more advanced forms? Dawkins admits to being baffled by the nautilus, which in its hundreds of millions of years of existence has never evolved a lens for its eye despite having a retina that is "practically crying out for (this) particular simple change."

______________

Your answer to his question is to ridicule, but the truth remains, the EYE is the most damning evidence that evolution is incomplete at best and/or completely wrong. The last sentence of the above quote is the biggest problem facing evolution. Not with only the eye, but with all the lower life forms and why they have not evolved at all in millions of years... Those are questions Evolution Believers refuse to answer, because they know they can't... Now That's A FACT!

--Charles Marcello



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


bunny....'piltdown' and Haeckel are the two most important ones....

'piltdown' may or may not have been and ACTUAL fraud attempt at fame and fortune. Haeckel and likely the others, over-enthusiastic and just plain wrong!

(however, have you never seen the vestigal tail on a Human fetus? In adults it's know as the 'coccyx').

This is WHY scientific peer review works. The intentional, non-intentional and just simply incompetent get sorted out. AND, quite a few of those examples happened in the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries.

let's see....WHEN did Darwin write his books, again????? Hated to mention his name, because this is NOT about his observations....it is what OTHER people thought, after beginning to piece together very disparate pieces of a big puzzle....BEFORE modern tech, like Carbon Dating, etc. PLUS, any fossil that is discovered must be put into context, which require other disciplines, such as geology and biology for instance, to determine if the fossil is valid, or if it moved because of erosion or some geologic force.

Neanderthal.....there is ample evidence to indicate that they were a related species to Homo Erectus, perhaps Homo Habilus.....and that they were contemporaries, and in competition for scarce resources, depending on the environmental factors (an Ice Age, for instance).

Just as other related sub-species will compete, even evident today.



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Gday,


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Again, you're spouting off misinformation.
Every fossil is transitional? You actually believe this? You're the only one then, because science doesn't agree with you.


Wrong.
Science DOES agree with me,
as you would know if you ever cracked a science book.

This is probably the single most common creationist mis-conception - that there are TWO TYPES of fossils :
* transitional fossils
* normal, "full formed" fossils.

This is completely incorrect.
Evolution occurs as a continuous sequence of small transitions.

Every creature is transitional between itself and it's children.
YOU would be transitional between you parents and your children (if/when you ever had any.) As we ALL would be.
We are ALL mutants, we are ALL transitional.
This is a basic fact of evolution.
But you don't grasp it.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Like I said earlier in this thread if there are thousands of transitional fossils, name 51 for me. Should be simple for you to do, no?


Short answer - every fossil is transtional.

Some specific examples can be found here
en.wikipedia.org...
Many more than 51.

(Now don't try pretending Wiki is not a reliable source - all these examples have links to the HARD SCIENCE that backs them up. Actual scientific papers which can be checked.)

Some good lists here :
www.holysmoke.org...

Longer answer - here are some specific examples of sequences of evolutionary transitions :
www.talkorigins.org...
All with scientific cites - evidence that can be CHECKED.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Since you can't do that, quit claiming you're right.


I CAN do that.
I HAVE done that.
I AM right.

But let's face it - you will just find an excuse to ignore it all, again.


Kapyong



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Again, you're spouting off misinformation.
Every fossil is transitional? You actually believe this? You're the only one then, because science doesn't agree with you.


Wrong.
Science DOES agree with me,
as you would know if you ever cracked a science book.

This is probably the single most common creationist mis-conception - that there are TWO TYPES of fossils :
* transitional fossils
* normal, "full formed" fossils.

This is completely incorrect.
Evolution occurs as a continuous sequence of small transitions.

Every creature is transitional between itself and it's children.
YOU would be transitional between you parents and your children (if/when you ever had any.) As we ALL would be.
We are ALL mutants, we are ALL transitional.
This is a basic fact of evolution.
But you don't grasp it.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Like I said earlier in this thread if there are thousands of transitional fossils, name 51 for me. Should be simple for you to do, no?


Short answer - every fossil is transtional.

Some specific examples can be found here
en.wikipedia.org...
Many more than 51.

(Now don't try pretending Wiki is not a reliable source - all these examples have links to the HARD SCIENCE that backs them up. Actual scientific papers which can be checked.)

Some good lists here :
www.holysmoke.org...

Longer answer - here are some specific examples of sequences of evolutionary transitions :
www.talkorigins.org...
All with scientific cites - evidence that can be CHECKED.


Originally posted by B.A.C.
Since you can't do that, quit claiming you're right.


I CAN do that.
I HAVE done that.
I AM right.

But let's face it - you will just find an excuse to ignore it all, again.


Kapyong


Here's what it say's on that page:

"An ideal list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, i.e. those forms morphologically similar to the ancestors of the monophyletic group containing the derived relative, and not intermediate forms."

These aren't all considered true transitionals. Again, incomplete information that you try to make seem complete.

Again, you try to present it as fact when it's incomplete.

No, I didn't find an excuse, I found a reason, big difference.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by littlebunny
 


bunny....'piltdown' and Haeckel are the two most important ones....

'piltdown' may or may not have been and ACTUAL fraud attempt at fame and fortune.
There is NO may or may not... IT WAS and everyone knows it WAS and IS a fraud! Its not open for debate! It was a FRAUD!



(however, have you never seen the vestigal tail on a Human fetus? In adults it's know as the 'coccyx').
The ahh-hum... tail...? No such thing exists! Sure, there are Evolutionist who want to point to what looks like a tail, but it is not! If you want I can prove it!


This is WHY scientific peer review works. The intentional, non-intentional and just simply incompetent get sorted out. AND, quite a few of those examples happened in the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries.

Peer review does not work, especially when you have a segment of the science community that does everything short of murder to make Evolution accepted! I could give recent examples of Evolutionary Frauds, within the last 30 years... That science said was Proof, which has since been proven to be frauds outside the science community to the complete embarrassment of the scientific community! Peer review workS! Muuhahahah!

Now that was funny! This conversation is tired, but every now and then someone says something that makes me laugh... Thanks for that!

--Charles Marcello




[edit on 4-3-2009 by littlebunny]



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by littlebunny
 


Sorry, bunny.....the 'eyes' have it!!! (pun...)

The eye is such a favorite of creationists, and it's ironic that it is one of the WORST arguments available to plead their case!

The eye adapts as far as it needs, via Natural Selection, to suit the need of the individual species.

Consider the modern Human eye: It has a very limited range of the EM spectrum visible to it. Why? Because, for the purpose of survival of our species, it's good enough.

felines can see much, much better in low-light conditions....owls too. because hunting in the dark has an advantage over their prey.

an eagle has an eye smaller than ours, but with MUCH better visual accuity at a distance...I daresay, so does a Hawk....and it continues. Name a species, and it has adapted to fill a particular niche....if the parameters change, than Natural Selection will, generation over generation, allow those who survive to breed the traits into their offspring that ALLOWED them to flourish long enough to mate.

I'm sick of needing corrective lenses for my eyes. I have needed glasses from childhood. If I had been an individual, in wild, I likely would have been culled, and my traits never passed down.

Humans, though have A) brains and B) community cooperation on their side.....plus, now, science. (hint: see 'brains')



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join