Evolution and Theory of Evolution

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course you will, i have seen this response from Evolution "theorists" hundreds of times. Everytime you ask them to explain the HUGE fossil problem they act like children and resort to name calling, this is nothing new to me. If evolution is true there should be BILLIONS of trans fossils not a mere handful of dubious exampless

Do you have any idea how rare fossilization is? It occurs to probably less than 0.5% of all living things, and - due to the very nature of fossilization - those fossils are spread out over great distances and are encased either deep within the earth's crust or embedded deep in a rock face. So, to put it another way, fossilization rarely ever occurs, and even when it does occur there is a very slim chance anyone is ever going to find it.

Even so, we have had tremendous success finding transitional fossils. To date, we've found hundreds. But perhaps what is more compelling than the fossils themselves is the fact that we used evolutionary theory to predict where those fossils would be and what features they would have. Case in point: the Tiktaalik (Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). These fossils were discovered by the team of Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins Jr. in 2006 after five years of digging in Ellesmere Island. They started digging there some time in 2001, predicting that - based on migratory patterns of early Sarcopterygii and the intersection that could be found there between the land and the sea - they would find the 300-million-odd year old remains of a tetrapod species that "filled the gap" between fish and land animals. Sure, enough the Tiktaalik was 372-million year old Sarcopterygii-tetrapod. This wasn't the only one that Daeschler found, either, having earlier discovered the Hynerpeton (Hynerpeton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) in 1994.

Yet another example of someone who doesn't understand basic palaeontology, and yet claims they can apply it to disprove established scientific observations.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Do you have any idea how rare fossilization is? It occurs to probably less than 0.5% of all living things, and - due to the very nature of fossilization - those fossils are spread out over great distances and are encased either deep within the earth's crust or embedded deep in a rock face. So, to put it another way, fossilization rarely ever occurs, and even when it does occur there is a very slim chance anyone is ever going to find it.

Even so, we have had tremendous success finding transitional fossils. To date, we've found hundreds. But perhaps what is more compelling than the fossils themselves is the fact that we used evolutionary theory to predict where those fossils would be and what features they would have. Case in point: the Tiktaalik (Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). These fossils were discovered by the team of Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins Jr. in 2006 after five years of digging in Ellesmere Island. They started digging there some time in 2001, predicting that - based on migratory patterns of early Sarcopterygii and the intersection that could be found there between the land and the sea - they would find the 300-million-odd year old remains of a tetrapod species that "filled the gap" between fish and land animals. Sure, enough the Tiktaalik was 372-million year old Sarcopterygii-tetrapod. This wasn't the only one that Daeschler found, either, having earlier discovered the Hynerpeton (Hynerpeton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) in 1994.

Yet another example of someone who doesn't understand basic archaeology, and yet claims they can apply it to disprove established scientific observations.

But this is the point, they would simple claim that this is NOT a "transitional fossil" (intermediate) and its just their own "kind" which died out and so on.

That is why it is even pointless to talk about "missing links', 'Intermediates' or 'transitional forms' as they do not understand that All living forms, past and present, are transitional they simple do not understand evolution and using these words make them think that the lies they been told is true and never will understand that the usage of these words are mere semantics.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But this is the point, they would simple claim that this is NOT a "transitional fossil" (intermediate) and its just their own "kind" which died out and so on.

That is why it is even pointless to talk about "missing links', 'Intermediates' or 'transitional forms' as they do not understand that All living forms, past and present, are transitional they simple do not understand evolution and using these words make them think that the lies they been told is true and never will understand that the usage of these words are mere semantics.

Meh, it's always worth a shot in my book. If he isn't convinced, at least to some small degree, of the validity of fossils and the predictive power of evolutionary theory by my above post, it pretty-much goes without saying that everything you say is true.

Just to let you know, I'm willing to bet you're right. But I'll grant anybody the benefit of the doubt until they prove they're not worth it.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Meh, it's always worth a shot in my book. If he isn't convinced, at least to some small degree, of the validity of fossils and the predictive power of evolutionary theory by my above post, it pretty-much goes without saying that everything you say is true.

Just to let you know, I'm willing to bet you're right. But I'll grant anybody the benefit of the doubt until they prove they're not worth it.

I am giving up, will just try to be a silent spectator (excluding the times when it goes to far and I cant shut up) and let you guys handle this.

Good luck Immoral.. opps! Freudian slip, Immortal, you'll need it.

 

[johnhanks]

Yet another example of someone who doesn't understand basic archaeology, and yet claims they can apply it to disprove established scientific observations.

OK, I'm being pedantic, but can I respectfully submit that it's palaeontology Dware has shown he doesn't understand? (Though given time it's a fair bet he'll show us he doesn't understand archaeology either.)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

OK, I'm being pedantic, but can I respectfully submit that it's palaeontology Dware has shown he doesn't understand? (Though given time it's a fair bet he'll show us he doesn't understand archaeology either.)

Ah, good point. Edited.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Ah, good point. Edited.

ImmortalFlame used the wrong word, HAHA! Proves that he can be wrong even in just writing a post, and we should accept his 'evidence' when he cant even type the right name??, and he admitted it.

Clearly we can disregard ImmortalFlame's entire post now and continue claiming Evolution is false.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

ImmortalFlame used the wrong word, HAHA! Proves that he can be wrong even in just writing a post, and we should accept his 'evidence' when he cant even type the right name??, and he admitted it.

Clearly we can disregard ImmortalFlame's entire post now and continue claiming Evolution is false.

 

[RedOne77]

Translating it "land" doesn't overcome the difficulty. But if you're suggesting a local flood that doesn't kill anything outside of Noah's horizon, then why was it necessary to take any animals at all into the ark?

As for the olive tree, that's a pretty strong clue that the biblical account isn't factual.

I'm just saying everything within the sight of Noah was killed (except the Ark), and elsewhere things must have survived, as indicated by the text itself. If you choose to interpret it another way, that is your choice.

 

[Gabethewiking]

I'm just saying everything within the sight of Noah was killed (except the Ark), and elsewhere things must have survived, as indicated by the text itself. If you choose to interpret it another way, that is your choice.

Red, some facts for you to consider.

1. The world is way older then 15000 years.
2. No "worldwide flood" has been recorded in the last 10 000 years.
3. Evolution is a fact and Humans (Homo sapien sapien) are a new breed which has only existed for a moment of Earths History.

Now, if you take that into account, How do you see your worldwide flood views? Perhaps a metaphor for something? Or a small regional flood used as story material?

 

[RedOne77]

This is amazing, you claim that it is impossible that one "kind" becomes another "kind", and yet you do not know what "kind" is, this is just ridiculous. Exactly why do you use a word that you have no knowledge of what it means? Why not say "wfdssd" or "btygf" or perhaps "bbdf", why do you spell the word "kind" as kind and claim its properties to be impossible without knowing what it is? Do you even realize how strange this is, do you see the words I am typing, I am using them because I want you to know what I want to say, why do You use words that mean nothing and you cannot yourself define?

I never said that we have no knowledge of what kind means, only that it is hard (if not impossible) to classify species under the correct kind.

But you deny it. That is amazing stuff... You know, I wonder if even simile examples if useful here.
Say that I claim there is no way that X could happen, then fantome or monkey or whoever tells me there is a Theory that recently got confirmed by scientific evidence, my answer to this would be "I never heard of it", and therefore X could never have happened, When monkey or fantome tells me to read about the study and theory, give me direct links to it, I tell them I do not have time and it doesn't matter, at it were, X can not happen because I never seen anything that could prove it to happen ad infinitum..

Do you have all the time in the world to devote to this forum Gabe? Is this your job? I seriously doubt that you have looked at all the evidence yourself, yet you have come to a conclusion have you not? I doubt you have looked at all the evidence for creation, I know I haven't, yet you still have come to a conclusion have you not? No one hardly ever has all the evidence, yet we still come to a conclusion based on what we do know. And if you deny this fact, than you are delusional.

 

[Gabethewiking]

I never said that we have no knowledge of what kind means, only that it is hard (if not impossible) to classify species under the correct kind.

So then there is no difference between regular scientist and Creationist? We find various species we simple do not know where to put because they are such intermediates putting us in the problem of which one we should define it as.

Do you have all the time in the world to devote to this forum Gabe? Is this your job? I seriously doubt that you have looked at all the evidence yourself, yet you have come to a conclusion have you not? I doubt you have looked at all the evidence for creation, I know I haven't, yet you still have come to a conclusion have you not? No one hardly ever has all the evidence, yet we still come to a conclusion based on what we do know. And if you deny this fact, than you are delusional.

What evidence for Creation? You also neeed to understand, I know the facts of Evolution, so I know Creation is false as it claims the world is 6000 years old, Humans have not evolved and so on, this is false, but if you take a more open approach to 'Creation', Sure, I may not know enough about it, as long as it do not deny facts.

I seen Kent Hovinds entire Seminar, that takes alot you know....

 

[McBell]

I never said that we have no knowledge of what kind means, only that it is hard (if not impossible) to classify species under the correct kind.

Then the term is completely useless.

Do you have all the time in the world to devote to this forum Gabe? Is this your job? I seriously doubt that you have looked at all the evidence yourself, yet you have come to a conclusion have you not? I doubt you have looked at all the evidence for creation, I know I haven't, yet you still have come to a conclusion have you not? No one hardly ever has all the evidence, yet we still come to a conclusion based on what we do know. And if you deny this fact, than you are delusional.

Why do you doubt his looking at the evidence?
Is it because you cannot fathom how someone can disagree with your beliefs?
Or is it that because you have not yet looked at, that he also could not have looked at it?

So what happens when you do actually look at it?
Will you accept it for what it is or will you merely discard, ignore, cherry pick that which goes against your preconceived notions?

 

[McBell]

I seen Kent Hovinds entire Seminar, that takes alot you know....

Holy ****!
The WHOLE seminar?

I bow to your superior patience.

 

[Autodidact]

Here's why a definition, or really a criteria, is important, RedOne. To use in science, a hypothesis needs to be theoretically falsifiable. We need to be able to use it to make predictions and test the hypothesis. If you can't do that, then you can't use science to determine whether it's correct. Unless we know what a kind is, we can't use it to generate any predictions.

 

[Gabethewiking]

Holy ****!
The WHOLE seminar?

I bow to your superior patience.

Yes, the entire thing including the extra material...
I had it saved for the future to remember but lost it a couple of years ago, I also found out that now it is not as easy to get ahold of without paying (why is money so important to Creationist? Really odd) and obviously, why would any moron pay for such garbage?

It was indeed an interesting seminar I can tell you, the regular, if I remember correctly, Seminar 1 to 6-7 is loonie, but then you have these small "seminars" where he talks to innocent "students" and his Conspiracy "theories" comes out even worse, the guy is insane (a regular Creationist).

 

[Gabethewiking]

RedOne, with all due respect.

You said that "kinds" do not change outside of these "kinds" and yet you can not provide an expalantion of what a "kind" is, so how can you make this claim? I show you one "kind" becoming another "kind", how would you know? The word is useless and I ask you not to use it anymore as it has no meaning (you cant define it).

Now, if you have another word for a group of Animals that can interbreed, use this, or just go with "Species". What you know as "Macro" Evolution is a fact, if you want to learn about it, we are all open to take our time and explain it to you, but please do not Lie to us and pretend you want to learn and ignore all the evidence we give you.

 

[Autodidact]

RedOne:

I haven't begun to present any yet. I would be happy to present the evidence that supports GToE. It will take many pages and many posts and a big time commitment. I will make that commitment, if you will. (It takes so long because there is so much of it.)

Are you interested in me posting this evidence, or would you rather retain your ability to deny that it exists?

 

[RedOne77]

Yes, the entire thing including the extra material...
I had it saved for the future to remember but lost it a couple of years ago, I also found out that now it is not as easy to get ahold of without paying (why is money so important to Creationist? Really odd) and obviously, why would any moron pay for such garbage?

It was indeed an interesting seminar I can tell you, the regular, if I remember correctly, Seminar 1 to 6-7 is loonie, but then you have these small "seminars" where he talks to innocent "students" and his Conspiracy "theories" comes out even worse, the guy is insane (a regular Creationist).

Wow! I have seen little clips here and there, but I have never watch an entire seminar before. He is a complete lunatic, and his "scientific" knowledge is so sad I'm not sure how he has so many supporters. Perhaps the money isn't for the information, as much as the laughs you can get from it (?)

 

[Autodidact]

RedOne:
Maybe you've already done this and it's scattered around various threads, but in any case would you be so kind as to lay out in one handy post your position? I understand that you accept speciation and believe it's confined within an undefined barrier called a "kind," but beyond that, what is your position on how we got the diversity of species we find here on earth? I gather you don't posit a global flood--what about the age of the earth and so forth? Thanks.