Wheel Argument

[painted wolf]

The definition of evolution: "Change in allele frequencies over time"
It's all about genetics... and as for wheels, bicycles and unicycles are made by hand from individually made parts by teams of people... Living things have sex and children. Bicycles can not make baby bicycles.
This is a profound difference.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Baydn is right, cats and dogs both have tails because they descend from a common ancestor, as do we. That's why we have a tail bone, though no tail--it's vestigial.

 

[painted wolf]

And bicycles and unicycles don't... because they don't have ancestors, they don't reproduce.

wa:do

 

[Platypus]

Really interesting things brought up, but did not get a lot of the terminology you guys used "Yecs" etc.

Sadly, I went to the conference today without checking the website and I wont be seeing them anytime soon as their on a "tour".... But I still appreciate everyone replying and the person replying with the detailed illustrations, etc.

Funny though, I view these "speakers of truth" as corrupt men behind masks. They frequently addressed popular questions, and then, funny as it is, quickly said the answer to this question is answered in this "book" which was available in the back of the conference.

Only for a retail value of $9.99 You can have the answer! Yet they did not only do this once, but multiple times.... About 10 times?

Of course, the projecting screen behind them showed the book and author. As if this whole "creation" conference was actually just a SALES CONFERENCE.

__________________________


I agree with you guys about how bicycle are inanimate objects and how the speaker suggests there is a designer is wrong.

He also said "If the comit killed the dinosaurs, then what about ducks? They should be gone to". Yet the truth is, he's suggesting that ducks were at the same period of time as dinosaurs. He's mixing the concept of creationist and evolution.

He of courses constantly makes comedic responses saying "Oh thats so stupid" and frequently attacks Richard Dawkins.

__________________________

But friends, I have only one and only one valid statement that they mentioned in the lecture, that actually confused me.

They mentioned that mammals were found in the same sedimentary as dinosaurs. I am not sure if this is true, or some faked information as I cant recall any sources...

Does anyone care to explain this?

__________________________

Also, A tree was fosilized and they claimed fosilization only occurs in the right conditions, and they say scientist "interprets fosilizaiton as sedimentary covering the object to be fosilized over long periods of time." and they claim fosilization can only occur if there was the right conditions.

They also said this tree could not be fossilized slowly over a period of million of years, if it was VERTICAL LAYED. and then said "You dont see half a tree in the dirt, and the top living for millions of years". They said that the sedimentary a few centimeters long is what scientist called over a million years old, yet the tree extended for well over "100" million years of rock.

They justify this by saying the flood (from noah's arch) is real.

Can anyone answer this?

 

[Autodidact]

Really interesting things brought up, but did not get a lot of the terminology you guys used "Yecs" etc.

Sadly, I went to the conference today without checking the website and I wont be seeing them anytime soon as their on a "tour".... But I still appreciate everyone replying and the person replying with the detailed illustrations, etc.

Funny though, I view these "speakers of truth" as corrupt men behind masks. They frequently addressed popular questions, and then, funny as it is, quickly said the answer to this question is answered in this "book" which was available in the back of the conference.

Only for a retail value of $9.99 You can have the answer! Yet they did not only do this once, but multiple times.... About 10 times?

Of course, the projecting screen behind them showed the book and author. As if this whole "creation" conference was actually just a SALES CONFERENCE.

__________________________


I agree with you guys about how bicycle are inanimate objects and how the speaker suggests there is a designer is wrong.

He also said "If the comit killed the dinosaurs, then what about ducks? They should be gone to". Yet the truth is, he's suggesting that ducks were at the same period of time as dinosaurs. He's mixing the concept of creationist and evolution.

He of courses constantly makes comedic responses saying "Oh thats so stupid" and frequently attacks Richard Dawkins.

__________________________

But friends, I have only one and only one valid statement that they mentioned in the lecture, that actually confused me.

They mentioned that mammals were found in the same sedimentary as dinosaurs. I am not sure if this is true, or some faked information as I cant recall any sources...

Does anyone care to explain this?

__________________________

Also, A tree was fosilized and they claimed fosilization only occurs in the right conditions, and they say scientist "interprets fosilizaiton as sedimentary covering the object to be fosilized over long periods of time." and they claim fosilization can only occur if there was the right conditions.

They also said this tree could not be fossilized slowly over a period of million of years, if it was VERTICAL LAYED. and then said "You dont see half a tree in the dirt, and the top living for millions of years". They said that the sedimentary a few centimeters long is what scientist called over a million years old, yet the tree extended for well over "100" million years of rock.

They justify this by saying the flood (from noah's arch) is real.

Can anyone answer this?

Yes, it's false.

 

[Platypus]

So theres no real evidence mammals were found in the same rocks as dinosaurs?

Or that a tree was fossilized in rock that are worth "million of years of history"?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So theres no real evidence mammals were found in the same rocks as dinosaurs?

Nope. I can't find a single credible source which states that any such fossils have been found save for a few apologist websites, and, honestly, if such a thing would have been found then we'd all know about it by now.

Or that a tree was fossilized in rock that are worth "million of years of history"?

There are, but they do not lend themselves whatsoever to the creationists argument. They are well documented and well understood to occur through rapid sedimentation and erupting stratovolcanoes. The semi-official term from them is "Polystrate fossils" -
Polystrate fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Riverwolf]

Really interesting things brought up, but did not get a lot of the terminology you guys used "Yecs" etc.

Sadly, I went to the conference today without checking the website and I wont be seeing them anytime soon as their on a "tour".... But I still appreciate everyone replying and the person replying with the detailed illustrations, etc.

Funny though, I view these "speakers of truth" as corrupt men behind masks. They frequently addressed popular questions, and then, funny as it is, quickly said the answer to this question is answered in this "book" which was available in the back of the conference.

Only for a retail value of $9.99 You can have the answer! Yet they did not only do this once, but multiple times.... About 10 times?

Of course, the projecting screen behind them showed the book and author. As if this whole "creation" conference was actually just a SALES CONFERENCE.

...Didn't an episode in Acts of the Apostles expressly condemn this kind of behavior?

18Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money,
19saying, "Give this authority to me as well, so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
20But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!

 

[Autodidact]

So theres no real evidence mammals were found in the same rocks as dinosaurs?

Or that a tree was fossilized in rock that are worth "million of years of history"?

Nope. If there were, it would falsify ToE. If it were true, thousands of scientists would have to be idiots or liars.

 

[Autodidact]

btw, Platypus, you've hit on a very interesting aspect of Young Earth Creationism. (YEC) It's essentially a money making enterprise. If you click on any of their websites, you will find a plea for money. Now click on a pro-evolution website, such as NCSE--no such plea.

I don't know if they're hucksters who know they're lying, or sincere idiots who make a living at it.

 

[Platypus]

Well, they never said "Only for a retail value of $9.99 You can have the answer!" but they did say the answer to this question is in the book, which I assume you have to pay for considering they were selling magazine subscriptions throughout the whole conference.

And not once did they try to prove creation was real, but only that evolution was false and only doing so by flawed arguments like the wheel and "mammals" found in sites where dinosaurs were.

Btw, what do you mean ToE?

 

[Autodidact]

Theory of Evolution. My ancient fingers get tired of typing it out.

 

[Platypus]

btw, Platypus, you've hit on a very interesting aspect of Young Earth Creationism. (YEC) It's essentially a money making enterprise. If you click on any of their websites, you will find a plea for money. Now click on a pro-evolution website, such as NCSE--no such plea.

I don't know if they're hucksters who know they're lying, or sincere idiots who make a living at it.

There were two speakers at this conference, one old who I think was sincere and defensive, an immigrant from Romania. And a young sktechy person, who has the mischievous look, a suit that does not quit fit, long hair thats jelled, really not sincere.

The young person always seemed to make comedic remarks towards how stupid "that theory" would be, and you let me tell you...

He tried pinning evolution AS a reason of the increase in violence. Of course the average person, believe it or not, believes everything taught by someone by authority. This in mind its easy for a corrupt speaker to provide wrong information...

He said that ever since Darwinian theory, millions of people have started dying because of the survival of the fittest concept of eliminating the unfit. The Lunar group he brings up, contained the worlds most hated people such as hitler and stalin were apart of such, and because of such a group millions of people die.

Which is true, millions of people DID die because of those two people, but I have never heard of a "Lunar group" in my life.

Then adds on abortions started becoming popular, and brings a number up of 53 million abortions in 1987.... only because Darwinian theory states to "get rid of the unfit", did people start aborting children.

So he pins this all on Darwinian theory so far....

But he fails to mention that under Christopher Columbus commands, during the colonization of South America they killed 20 million indigenous people, way before Darwinian theory.

He's saying in sum [ever since Darwinian, mass killings occurred] and is playing the guilt card, then bringing up that a high school student killed 11 people in his school because the student thought of himself as a god, and could decide who is unfit/fit to live. Of course, pinning Darwinian theory and wants you to interpret that nothing good can come from Darwinian theory. Which is easy, considering the average christian adult is a sponge, who listens to anything taught under authority and not being rational.

 

[Autodidact]

What could be stupider than thinking we can derive morality from a scientific theory. Does gravity cause violence? Germs? Atoms?

 

[Riverwolf]

What could be stupider than thinking we can derive morality from a scientific theory. Does gravity cause violence? Germs? Atoms?

I think the idea is that the theory of natural selection is instilling the "only the strong survive" mentality in people, thus causing more selfish attitudes and actions.

BS, if you ask me. :yes:

 

[Gabethewiking]

What could be stupider than thinking we can derive morality from a scientific theory. Does gravity cause violence? Germs? Atoms?

Personally I get really cranky when I am sick, if I got a horrible headache and some moron plays loud music.. Makes me angry.. Like. .I want to... I WANT TO.....

 

[Gabethewiking]

I think the idea is that the theory of natural selection is instilling the "only the strong survive" mentality in people, thus causing more selfish attitudes and actions.

BS, if you ask me. :yes:

Yeah, considering the "only the strong survive" has nothing to do with Evolution.
I think it is an excuse for people wanting to deny the Fact of Evolution to use, and the actual truth or falseness of the claim is ignored.

 

[painted wolf]

Guys I hate to break it to you... but there were lots of mammals during the age of dinosaurs... in fact we mammals appear at the same time as they do. Some early mammals ate dinosaurs.

Granted these were very primitive groups of mammals, most of which don't survive anymore.

Some mesozoic mammal links:
Category:Mesozoic mammals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a great image showing the amazing diversity that mammals had during the dinosaurs time... they filled many of the niches that they still do today.

In short be careful, I know Paleontology isn't everyones strong suit, but simple mistakes can be very damaging.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

the key to the argument, isn't that there are no mammals... but there are no modern mammals. No horses, mammoths or rabbits...or people. But very primitive (and in some cases still quite reptile like: sprawling limbs, egg laying) mammals.

wa:do

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Guys I hate to break it to you... but there were lots of mammals during the age of dinosaurs... in fact we mammals appear at the same time as they do. Some early mammals ate dinosaurs.

Granted these were very primitive groups of mammals, most of which don't survive anymore.

Some mesozoic mammal links:
Category:Mesozoic mammals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a great image showing the amazing diversity that mammals had during the dinosaurs time... they filled many of the niches that they still do today.

In short be careful, I know Paleontology isn't everyones strong suit, but simple mistakes can be very damaging.

wa:do

Well, crap in a handbasket. See, this is why these questions should really only be answered by people whose knowledge extends beyond that which is provided by Google.