I’ve got this rectangular, flat thing in my house, whenever I push some of the buttons on it all kinds of things - people, animals, trees - just appear on it, moving around and so on.I keep seeing this thread go to the "new posts" lists, and I get all excited about seeing videographic evidence for new species coming from thin air, and I click on the thread.
I'm then dejected to see it's just more of the same futile arguing that exists in practically every other EvC thread.
I can no longer live on this emotional roller coaster.Someone PM me when someone actually posts this evidence.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Irony of Creationist belief
- Thread starter sayak83
- Start date
I have a dracaena plant in my house.
Good conversationalist?
Better than some, worse than others.
Notice the headline says Four FAMOUS Transitional Fossils. It doesn't say there are only four.
And that there are transitional fossils being found is enough to understand this is how organisms change over time.
What do you expect experts to say in their time and with the evidence they have? Lie? Make things up that aren't backed by evidence, like interpretations of Genesis?As for one of them - archaeopteryx - has been known since the 1800’s! And Gould still said what he did.
The problem “persists” today.
Why do you think he & Eldredge came up with Punctuated Equilibrium?
Punctuated Equilibrium and Lack of Transitions | Evolution News
Why would Eldredge and Gould propose such a model? Because they knew the data showed that potential transitional fossils are an extreme rarity.evolutionnews.org
Since the 70's computers and genetic mapping has allowed science to advance models of evolution that just looking at fossils couldn't do.
Audie
Veteran Member
Is willful ignorance, quote mining, and making things
up somehow relatrd to intellectual dishonesty?
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
I would like to address another science casino on the Las Vegas Strip of Science, where the House always wins, by using the same math. This is called climate change and global warming. Like the weatherman, how many global warming and climate change predictions have failed? Why is there no accountability?
In contrast to rational science; if you could somehow do even one repeatable experiment, that could disprove Einstein's relativity, it would be open season for experimental change and allowance for all new theory. Yet with climate change, which uses casino math, bad model predictions do not change the direction of the ship, that cannot lose. Why is that still called science, and not a rigged game?
The main variable of the Earth's weather is water; oceans, atmosphere and subterranean. Water is also the foundation of life and integrates life by touching everything in life. Say we apply the second law to the earth; the entropy of the earth has to increase. Shouldn't the 2nd law account for climate change; earth complexity has to increase. The question is what is the main integrating variable?
The moderate temperature of the earth is due to the surface water, not CO2. If there was no surface water, the barren earth would be a very toasty 153 F. Now the average temperate of the earth; due to water, is about 59F. Why is the water not the main variable for the science casino that cannot lose? They're worried about 1.5C, while water moderates about 100F and can do more. The House that cannot lose estimates for warming all tend to be too high, because they fail to give water credit due. They do not have to, if the house has to win.
Say we had no water on the earth. The atmosphere would be based on the partial pressures of the current dominant gases like N2, O2 and also traces of other gases like CO2 and CH4, etc. Once we add water, we add a multitasking wild card. All the other gases stay, gases from 59F to 153F. Water, can become a gas, liquid or solid within the same range, while all other gases need to stay, gases; equator to poles. Water has three separate contributions to weather and climate, based on how each phase interacts with solar and ambient heat. Water is far more complex and not a one trick pony, like the trace gases that cannot lose; by default.
If we start with liquid water, and evaporate it, into water vapor; solar heating, there is an expansion of 1600 times. One meter3 of liquid water will become 1600m3 of water vapor. This expansion into a gas exerts a partial pressure, into the atmosphere of the permanent gases. This is how high pressure systems often form; evaporated water vapor adds pressure. While clouds, which are due to water vapor attracting via hydrogen bonding, can keep this higher pressure contained; equilibrium between free and contained water. The high pressure does not have to dissipate very fast, as would occur with all the other gases. This containment time delay has its own wild cards; compacts the rain fall, instead of just fog and mist.
Say this high pressure system started to get cooler, so water began to condense; rain cloud. We will get the opposite, or a 1600 times reduction in volume. This reduces the partial pressure in the local atmosphere and pulls a vacuum. We call this a low pressure system. The difference in pressure between low and high systems, can move air for breezes and wind between lingering pressure zones.
Without water, the high and low pressure systems of the rest of the permanent gases, would not be the same thing. They would be mostly due to temperature differences; cold and hot, with colder denser. Since they lack the hydrogen bonding of the wild card of water, that allows a wide range of cloud and weather containment effects, within low and high pressure systems, the pressure gradients would dissipate sooner. If we apply the second law; the base atmospheric gases are too simple to be the primary outlet for entropy increase. They will get maximized too easy and stop being a good outlet. Both water and permanent gas entropy occur together, but the water is the main zone of entropic climate change; due to the wide variety possible.
The house that cannot lose, permanent gas centric assumptions, are good for grade school children. It is easier to chew. But adults in science, should put their efforts into the water angle, since this is where all the entropic variety for climate change is expressed; 2nd law and water's many tools and expressions.
The above over view does not include subterranean and inner earth water, which has exotic properties for inner earth entropy increases. Water allows us to interface the inner earth, with the, sun and surface, to add extra secondary effects, that reflects more than just climate change; total earth change. I predicted water would be found in the core of the earth, based on my theory. I was proven correct, years later. The deep ocean and crust/mantle interface is a good place to begin to make full earth change connections; water is continuous.
In contrast to rational science; if you could somehow do even one repeatable experiment, that could disprove Einstein's relativity, it would be open season for experimental change and allowance for all new theory. Yet with climate change, which uses casino math, bad model predictions do not change the direction of the ship, that cannot lose. Why is that still called science, and not a rigged game?
The main variable of the Earth's weather is water; oceans, atmosphere and subterranean. Water is also the foundation of life and integrates life by touching everything in life. Say we apply the second law to the earth; the entropy of the earth has to increase. Shouldn't the 2nd law account for climate change; earth complexity has to increase. The question is what is the main integrating variable?
The moderate temperature of the earth is due to the surface water, not CO2. If there was no surface water, the barren earth would be a very toasty 153 F. Now the average temperate of the earth; due to water, is about 59F. Why is the water not the main variable for the science casino that cannot lose? They're worried about 1.5C, while water moderates about 100F and can do more. The House that cannot lose estimates for warming all tend to be too high, because they fail to give water credit due. They do not have to, if the house has to win.
Say we had no water on the earth. The atmosphere would be based on the partial pressures of the current dominant gases like N2, O2 and also traces of other gases like CO2 and CH4, etc. Once we add water, we add a multitasking wild card. All the other gases stay, gases from 59F to 153F. Water, can become a gas, liquid or solid within the same range, while all other gases need to stay, gases; equator to poles. Water has three separate contributions to weather and climate, based on how each phase interacts with solar and ambient heat. Water is far more complex and not a one trick pony, like the trace gases that cannot lose; by default.
If we start with liquid water, and evaporate it, into water vapor; solar heating, there is an expansion of 1600 times. One meter3 of liquid water will become 1600m3 of water vapor. This expansion into a gas exerts a partial pressure, into the atmosphere of the permanent gases. This is how high pressure systems often form; evaporated water vapor adds pressure. While clouds, which are due to water vapor attracting via hydrogen bonding, can keep this higher pressure contained; equilibrium between free and contained water. The high pressure does not have to dissipate very fast, as would occur with all the other gases. This containment time delay has its own wild cards; compacts the rain fall, instead of just fog and mist.
Say this high pressure system started to get cooler, so water began to condense; rain cloud. We will get the opposite, or a 1600 times reduction in volume. This reduces the partial pressure in the local atmosphere and pulls a vacuum. We call this a low pressure system. The difference in pressure between low and high systems, can move air for breezes and wind between lingering pressure zones.
Without water, the high and low pressure systems of the rest of the permanent gases, would not be the same thing. They would be mostly due to temperature differences; cold and hot, with colder denser. Since they lack the hydrogen bonding of the wild card of water, that allows a wide range of cloud and weather containment effects, within low and high pressure systems, the pressure gradients would dissipate sooner. If we apply the second law; the base atmospheric gases are too simple to be the primary outlet for entropy increase. They will get maximized too easy and stop being a good outlet. Both water and permanent gas entropy occur together, but the water is the main zone of entropic climate change; due to the wide variety possible.
The house that cannot lose, permanent gas centric assumptions, are good for grade school children. It is easier to chew. But adults in science, should put their efforts into the water angle, since this is where all the entropic variety for climate change is expressed; 2nd law and water's many tools and expressions.
The above over view does not include subterranean and inner earth water, which has exotic properties for inner earth entropy increases. Water allows us to interface the inner earth, with the, sun and surface, to add extra secondary effects, that reflects more than just climate change; total earth change. I predicted water would be found in the core of the earth, based on my theory. I was proven correct, years later. The deep ocean and crust/mantle interface is a good place to begin to make full earth change connections; water is continuous.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Water is a greenhouse gas and an extremely effective one, but it's residence time in the atmosphere is limited. All of this is known and studied and unrelated to your imaginary physics.
Astrophile
Active Member
First, we can be certain that every fossil had parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. back to the origin of life.
Second, whether any fossil had offspring or not, for every fossil that has been preserved and discovered, there were hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of individuals of the same species that were not preserved. What reason have you got for supposing that all of these followed Hamlet's advice to Ophelia ('Get thee to a nunnery') and vowed themselves to a life of celibacy?
Audie
Veteran Member
Our hit n run friend has again fled the interview
Last edited:
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
I have an aloe vera plant that I have had for a couple decades not.
Great listener.
Not much help in the way of advice though.
I bet that burns you.
I've had my dracaena plant for about 14 years. It started out maybe 18 inches tall. Now it's the same height as me.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
I accepted that it was not very good at offering advice not to long ago.
But its non-judgemental listing skill more than makes up for it.
Though I have thought more than once it may be guilty of enablement...
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
My aloe vera has grown outwards much more so than upwards...
AdamjEdgar
Active Member
That is beside the point...the claim being rebutted was that Genesis makes no mention of God creating or making anything. That is exactly why i included the text stating that God "SET" the stars in the heavens. Clearly it means God literally did exactly that!
People really need to learn to read and comprehend the bible with the standards of common use of language instead of trying to make up **** that simply isn't there or that it does or does not say!
According to some ingrained evolutionists, some on this very site, all fossils “could be considered” transnational! I think Sayak told me that once.
You’ll grasp at the weakest evidence, implying it’s “proof.”
At least the authors of the article are subjective in their tone, kudos for that.
Last edited:
No. The claim being rebutted is God directly poofed animals and plants out of thin air rather than the natural world doing it in accordance to his will.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes.
He knows we have transitionals and doesn't need to be told that.
Which implies that there are such fossils.
Also: 1977. We have found loads more since then and also learned quite a few things in those 50-ish years.
Says the guy who literally just provided a quote and inaccurately pretended it said something which it did not.
