Evolution Refusion

[fallingblood]

Yeah they teach Pangaea in school too, But I clearly just debunked that one in a few sentences.
Supplement, The Third Day of Creation from the Old Testament.

myself

You only "debunked" it by ignoring the evidence and the making an ignorant theory yourself. That is not debunking. Thatis simply ignoring the facts.

 

[JosephThomas]

It's not an ignorant theory, It's scriptural and geological accurate, where as Pangaea just failed before my feeble remarks.
Or I guess You didn't take a time to observe.
I was 100% right

 

[fallingblood]

It's not an ignorant theory, It's scriptural and geological accurate, where as Pangaea just failed before my feeble remarks.
Or I guess You didn't take a time to observe.
I was 100% right

Scripture never talks about anything of the sort. Scripture never mentions the continents, their positions, or the like. Scripture is not science. Any scientific theory that tries to rely on scripture, for the most part is ignorant.

You havent proven anything except shoddy research on all accounts.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah they teach Pangaea in school too, But I clearly just debunked that one in a few sentences.
Supplement, The Third Day of Creation from the Old Testament.

myself

you did no such thing


your arguement is so weak it really isnt worth waisting time on

 

[otokage007]

It's not an ignorant theory, It's scriptural and geological accurate, where as Pangaea just failed before my feeble remarks.
Or I guess You didn't take a time to observe.
I was 100% right

This is the proof of what children religious adoctrination can do.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Tumbleweed, painted wolf,
there were no fossils in that link to support your claim to transition fossils.
just a skull and no links. ...

Every fossil is a transitional fossil.

 

[painted wolf]

Once again, you didn't bother to read anything I posted did you?

Right in the first sentence they mention a nearly complete skeleton.

Is it really worth it.... to ask people a question and then totally ignore them when they answer you?

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

I can disprove the accepted model of pangaea simply by pointing out the subocean rift that stretched from Queen Maude Land Antarctica to East London Africa.
Specifically proving Antarctica must connect to Africa prior to South America.
And how did I figure this out before scholars? because I am telling the truth, where as they are stipulating on non factual God rebuking theoretical lies.


Africa ceases to connect to South America at Zessfontein and then Antarctica fits between them.

You'll have to be a little more specific with your disproof because the pattern of ridges and rifts in the South Atlantic conform quite well with the theory of Pangaea, as shown in this paper.

http://www.earthbyte.org/people/die..._SouthAtlantic_opening_Tectonophys1991pdf.pdf

 

[darkendless]

Tumbleweed, painted wolf,
there were no fossils in that link to support your claim to transition fossils.
just a skull and no links. ...

but,
Outhouse,
Darkendless , yes it is.. duh. lol.
replying "no it's not," isn't a just answer, please do use detail.

Now I am not saying that the coasts do not match up.
In fact i said that they do, perfectly, all of them, at once!

I can disprove the accepted model of pangaea simply by pointing out the subocean rift that stretched from Queen Maude Land Antarctica to East London Africa.
Specifically proving Antarctica must connect to Africa prior to South America.
And how did I figure this out before scholars? because I am telling the truth, where as they are stipulating on non factual God rebuking theoretical lies.


Africa ceases to connect to South America at Zessfontein and then Antarctica fits between them.

Well not really. They match up loosely.

The accepted model of pangaea is accepted for a reason where as you put on your god-glasses and close your mind to reason and logic. You have also not presented any evidence or geological data to back yourself up. Perhaps i'll bother being detailed when you do the same. Until then you're just another fundie here to waste everyones time.

 

[idav]

idav Your basically saying an elephant that wasn't an elephant would die, and yet they evolved to become elephants, having not been elephants.
as though a lion could not succeed if it had not evolved to be a lion, yet at some point it clearly would have not been a lion by this theory and then would not succeed, or we would see variations.
A kangaroo, has no similarites between it and other marsupials, and there are no transitional fossils there.
A whale, has no similarities between it and land animals and there are no transitional fossils between it and any animal including dinosaurs.
A chicken is outside my window, the rooster has a tail, the female hardly. impressive.
Goats, have two utters. there is no variation on all this wide planet.
Bovine have 4, again no variation.
Horses none, no variation. In fact horses are kind of exclusive, since they are proven to not able to successfully breed with donkeys.. they are infertile and fail.
and on and on

What kind of tangent are you on here? All I'm saying is what you see today are the animals that have survived transitions of genes and transitions of environment. A human certainly wouldn't be the same as an ancestor from 100,000 generations back but if that ancestor had not survived long enough to procreate then the line would have been cut and that particular bloodline would go extinct. There were even similar species to us like neanderthal but they went extinct even though they were probably more suited to survive than most animals. Competition is vicious in nature and nature is very good at getting rid of species. I'm not sure what transitions your looking for. It's like what you looking for is proof of your ancestor living today wondering why you don't look like them. Of course your not going to look like your ancestor and the further back you go the more different your ancestor will be from you.

 

[otokage007]

Fallingblood
idav Your basically saying an elephant that wasn't an elephant would die, and yet they evolved to become elephants, having not been elephants.
as though a lion could not succeed if it had not evolved to be a lion, yet at some point it clearly would have not been a lion by this theory and then would not succeed, or we would see variations.

To make sure you understand evolution, I encourage you to chek this
[youtube]rN26gFxTXvc[/youtube]
‪Evolution for Dummies‬‏ - YouTube

A whale, has no similarities between it and land animals and there are no transitional fossils between it and any animal including dinosaurs.

In fact, we know its ancestor.
Whales Descended From Tiny Deer-like Ancestors

A chicken is outside my window, the rooster has a tail, the female hardly. impressive.

I don't know what you pretend to say with that. Anyway, here you got an article about chiken's evolution.
Heredity - Genomics: The chicken genome sequence

I have also found an article about chinkens and humans common ancestor, but is in spanish so...

Goats, have two utters. there is no variation on all this wide planet.

Here you got.
Bezoar (Capra aegagrus) is a matriarchal candidate... [Biochem Genet. 1997] - PubMed result

Bovine have 4, again no variation.
Horses none, no variation. In fact horses are kind of exclusive, since they are proven to not able to successfully breed with donkeys.. they are infertile and fail.
and on and on

Truth is the evolution of horses is pretty well documented:
Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

also the bible reads that it is a sin to breed your animals of different kinds.

 

[JosephThomas]

Everyone,
thank you for entertaining this branch of the argument.
But I've deviated the conversation, and would like to return to what luisDantas had argued.

Painted Wold, as we can see in this argument text is not proof, we need evidence.
you are clearly repeating over and over the theory of selective choice, without cause.
Now given this is a debate I agree with your motive, but provide rather shady works.
love to keep you around, you introduced the sherpa

Otakage, beautiful video. ahaha


Now, to brig us back to the point,



What is your collective group census on Evolution.
are the changes 'chance evolution' / 'selective breeding' / or 'purposeful changes'
from what I have heard they are a mix between selective breeeding and chance.
If We choose Chance, the Sherpa is an invalid example of evolution, in association tot heir lung capacity. If we choose selective breeding, again it is invalid.
I need to know where you ALL stand before this debate can continue.

Choose your theory.
then LuisDantas, I will address your questions.
edit
forgive me Otokage, yours too

 

[tumbleweed41]

.....
you are clearly repeating over and over the theory of selective choice, without cause.

What "Theory of Selective Choice"? I know of no such "theory" in Biological Evolution.


Unless, of course, you are referring to the "choice" something makes when selecting it's breeding partner. But that is just one small facet of the much larger and more complicated Theory of Evolution.

 

[otokage007]

If We choose Chance, the Sherpa is an invalid example of evolution, in association tot heir lung capacity. If we choose selective breeding, again it is invalid.

Why it is invalid?
Maybe sherpa have genetic mutations that help them to survive in high altitudes. I assume we could agree in this point. However, why do you think that's an argument against ToE?

Also, I must inform you that this haven't been scientifically proved. Sherpa might simply have physiological adaptations unrelated to DNA mutations. This means that any person could have their characteristics if exposed to high altitudes enough time.

 

[camanintx]

If We choose Chance, the Sherpa is an invalid example of evolution, in association tot heir lung capacity.

How so? If their lung capacity is determined by a genetic trait passed down from their ancestors, it would be a classic example of evolution at work.

 

[McBell]

What is your collective group census on Evolution.
are the changes 'chance evolution' / 'selective breeding' / or 'purposeful changes'
from what I have heard they are a mix between selective breeeding and chance.
If We choose Chance, the Sherpa is an invalid example of evolution, in association tot heir lung capacity. If we choose selective breeding, again it is invalid.
I need to know where you ALL stand before this debate can continue.

Sounds to me like you are trying to claim that 5+5 is the ONLY way to get 10.

 

[painted wolf]

Painted Wold, as we can see in this argument text is not proof, we need evidence.
you are clearly repeating over and over the theory of selective choice, without cause.
Now given this is a debate I agree with your motive, but provide rather shady works.
love to keep you around, you introduced the sherpa

I didn't introduce the sherpas into this discussion.

And what evidence would you like? Should I bring the fossils over to your house?

But remember, if text is invalid by it's very nature, then your position is also invalid.

What is your collective group census on Evolution.
are the changes 'chance evolution' / 'selective breeding' / or 'purposeful changes'
from what I have heard they are a mix between selective breeeding and chance.
If We choose Chance, the Sherpa is an invalid example of evolution, in association tot heir lung capacity. If we choose selective breeding, again it is invalid.
I need to know where you ALL stand before this debate can continue.

Choose your theory.

A change in allele frequencies over time.

wa:do

 

[tumbleweed41]

A change in allele frequencies over time.

wa:do

This. :yes:

 

[jarofthoughts]

A change in allele frequencies over time.

wa:do

Check.

 

[JosephThomas]

Allele,
Thanks for the educational tip on basic bio science.

I'm sorry your all too blind to see, that you are hidden behind lies.
That you refuse to look at your own belief with a critical eye, and see
that nothing actually supports what you say,
that you say 3 different conflicting things,
and that the drug abuse, sexual immorality, gang violence, and government scandals
run smoothly because of ToE.

I apologize fro any rash argument,
for both failing and giving up to prove you wrong.
But i was atheist for 19 years, I know the ins and outs.
I've been reborn, not because I was told, but because God introduced himself to me,
as the bible reads, I am prepared to approach he who is not ready," I was not
But now I have no choice but to tell you, and everyone, that
Adultery, greed, selfishness, drunkenness and ignorance are not Good, and nothing good can come from what is Bad.

"Woe to those whoa re champions at mixing strong drink-"
"Woe to those who build their houses next to each other and connect their vineyards-"
"Woe to the fool-"
"The slothful will be hungry-"

"Those who do not come to Jerusalem to sacrifice offerings before the Lord (at the end of times) will rott in their flesh."

"Dress yourself in good deeds. Those who are not dressed and ready for the marriage of Christ to the new Kingdom will not be welcomed to the Kingdom."