Evolution and Religion

  • 205 Replies
  • 34774 Views
Evolution and Religion
« on: November 07, 2005, 05:32:04 AM »
I don't know Nrg.
I heard it from someone else at "BC" (a Swedish forum for those of you that don't know)  ((he was an atheist)).
Maybe I should look it up ^^
« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 10:14:18 PM by Jack »
#31169;はエマを永久に愛する

"If you know what it means, then why question it?" -A good philosophy to follow

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Evolution???
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2005, 09:13:13 AM »
Quote from: "Nrg"
What "glitches" are you talking about, Virgo?


Maybe he's talking about the little ones, like the fact that there is no evidence what so ever to say that the evolution theory is true.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

?

Nrg

  • 24
Evolution???
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2005, 10:30:45 AM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Maybe he's talking about the little ones, like the fact that there is no evidence what so ever to say that the evolution theory is true.
Yeah, well, except for all the fossils showing improvements of entire species. I mean, creationism got loads of more evidence like... Um... Yeah, like what?
f meat is murder, are eggs rape?

Evolution???
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2005, 11:52:44 AM »
Nrg: I think there were some real glitches somewhere. Like jumps in the "bridge" if you know what I mean. Species that should have been in between but aren't there and such.
#31169;はエマを永久に愛する

"If you know what it means, then why question it?" -A good philosophy to follow

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Evolution???
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2005, 12:44:05 PM »
Quote from: "Nrg"
Yeah, well, except for all the fossils showing improvements of entire species.


Quote
For decades students have been shown a representation of the fossil record appearing as a vertical column with marine invertebrates on the bottom, overlain by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, with man on the top. The column is a column of time, they are told, with the long ago past on the bottom and the present on top. The fossil column (or similar figure) is presented without question as if it were true—as if it were real data. Students are led to believe that the order of first appearance of the fossils over time proves evolution.

I suggest that it does no such thing, for several reasons. First, the fossils do not occur in this order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom (i.e., long ago) are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts. In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. To be honest, the entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking. A case can perhaps be made for the order of first appearance of vertebrates (i.e., fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals), but vertebrate fossils are exceptions to the rule and usually quite fragmentary, with the lower range of each often being extended downward with new discoveries. Most come from Ice Age deposits which sometimes contain human remains also.

Second, the evolutionary presentation in the textbook column implies that all life has come from one (or perhaps a few) common ancestor(s). But the Cambrian System, the lowest (i.e., oldest) level containing extensive multicellular fossils, exhibits a virtual explosion of life. Suddenly (by this I mean without the necessary ancestors lower in the column), every phylum of life is found—every basic body style, including vertebrate fish. The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many.

Third, these diverse forms continue up the column (i.e., throughout time) with much the same appearance possessed at the start. The term stasis describes the tendency to "stay" the same, remain "stationary" or "static." Some body styles go extinct as you come up the column, but no new basic styles are introduced.

Summarizing:

1) Abrupt appearance
2) Diversity at the start, and
3) Stasis.
Certainly the fossil record does not prove evolution. On the other hand, its character fully supports creation of multiple "kinds" at the start with no evolutionary lineage, and continuance of those rather static kinds with limited adaptations into the present, or else going extinct. This is the creation idea.

The fossils further support the Flood. While no evolutionary trends can be seen bridging the basic kinds and producing new ones, we do see a transition from totally marine at the bottom to more terrestrial toward the top. At every level the dominant fossil is marine, but more and more land-dwelling fossils creep in. What more pursuasive testimony to the Biblical model could there be?

John Morris, Ph.D.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Evolution???
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2005, 04:14:14 AM »
No....evidence....... :x ....NO....EVIDENCE!!!

DUDE! I've been studying dinosaurs for the past 10 years! Do not say things you have NO idea about!

In the age of Dinosaurs There also existed large and small swimming reptiles, such at pliosaurs and pleosaurs (cant remember how to spell them right, I just memorised how to say them). How on earth did these creatures suddenly vanish? The flood wouldnt have wiped them out, and surely if Crocodiles survived then surely no;reptile targeting disease that affects only marine reptiles; could have wiped them out. Where do u lie on this?
 
More importantly Dinosaurs are the ultimate link in the world to evolution. We find that dinosaurs who's carbon dating (as well as layer dating) is before 200 million BC do not have chewing teeth, and after that time, most herbivores do. We also find that some of the smaller dinosaurs, such as consagnathus, slowly grew their arms outright and over time developed feathers on their arms. and we can see that later consagnathus have hollower bones (birds have hollow bones so that their bones arnt too heavy to fly). Doesn't it seem logical that this works in perfect co-ordination with evolution? Where does ur god stand on this?
 
 We do have fossilised Dinosaur remains (waste just in case u still don;t get me: poo), and from what we see is that there is no grass at all in any of the dinosaur & their waste. Not even slight evidence, considering that grass the absolute primary plant species that exist, doesnt it seem strange that none of these wastes contain any grass in them at all? If ur a large herbivore that digests on minor plants usually ferns and grass is a minor Plant with virtually the same minerals as ferns, then shouldnt it be logical that we find fern AND grass remain in the waste. Isnt it far more logical that because we find no such evidence that grass slowly evolved from ferns into grass? P.S its not only dinosaurs that we dont find grass in waste early mammal waste and other early reptiles (Dinosaurs are NOT reptiles).  
 
 further expanding on the last paragraph, we find that herbivores of the Triassic through to Cretaceous digested certain ferns that no longer exist, and didnt feed on plants that now do exist. Infact virtually ALL the plants that were digested by dinosaurs do not exist anymore, However these plants have been fossilised, and we can tell that, although u wouldnt believe it, 360-65 million years old, Doesnt it seem logical that the plants evolved from these plants cousins. Besides from what we can see from these plants is that they were high in protein and energy (high kilajules) AND they died out almost exactly when dinosaurs did. Logically these plants were intended for the massive herbivores due to high energy ability (and they were incredibly larger).

As you can tell i'm only talking about dinosaurs, i COULD go into other areas, like ice age evolution, early animal life, that virus's are evolving all the time in responce to out powerful anti-virus's, and more importantly, the fact that HUMANS have evolved from being 4 foot high everage 5000 years ago to 6 foot high average now. Dude! Use your brain!
 r dominate forum

?

pspunit

  • The Elder Ones
  • 98
Evolution???
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2005, 12:57:10 PM »
hey, astrophysicist, way to go, you jackb*tt. It's the 21st century, not the 19th. The 19th century was the 1800s when ignorance like these peoples' may have been a bit more acceptable.
Three people of different nationalities walk into the bar. Two of them say something smart, and the third one makes a mockery of his fellow countrymen by acting dumb."

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Evolution???
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2005, 03:48:37 PM »
First off, it's never a good idea to start off an argument by saying you can't spell the name of something you have been studying for ten years.

Quote from: "Brylian"

Where do u lie on this?


Why couldn't a flood have wiped them out? do you think that there was some sort of invisible wall around the oceans and they would only have stayed in a specific area? what if they swam over what would become dry land once the water dried up? and how do you know that they are all extinct? we can't go down very far in the ocean yet. who Knows what we'll find.
 
Quote
We find that dinosaurs who's carbon dating (as well as layer dating) is before 200 million BC do not have chewing teeth, and after that time, most herbivores do.


What did they do, gum their food?

Quote
We also find that some of the smaller dinosaurs, such as consagnathus, slowly grew their arms outright and over time developed feathers on their arms.


how do you know this? do you have a time machine that allows you to go back and watch?

Quote
Doesn't it seem logical that this works in perfect co-ordination with evolution? Where does ur god stand on this?


Not really it doesn't, since all you are doing is guessing as to what those dinosuars where actually like.
 
Quote
We do have fossilised Dinosaur remains and what we see is that there is no grass at all in any of the dinosaur & their waste. Not even slight evidence, considering that grass the absolute primary plant species that exist, doesnt it seem strange that none of these wastes contain any grass in them at all? If ur a large herbivore that digests on minor plants usually ferns and grass is a minor Plant with virtually the same minerals as ferns, then shouldnt it be logical that we find fern AND grass remain in the waste. Isnt it far more logical that because we find no such evidence that grass slowly evolved from ferns into grass?


I don't see what you're trying to prove here, are you saying that since there is no evidence of grass, that somehow proves evolution?
 
Quote
further expanding on the last paragraph, we find that herbivores of the Triassic through to Cretaceous digested certain ferns that no longer exist, and didnt feed on plants that now do exist. Infact virtually ALL the plants that were digested by dinosaurs do not exist anymore, However these plants have been fossilised, and we can tell that, although u wouldnt believe it, 360-65 million years old, Doesnt it seem logical that the plants evolved from these plants cousins. Besides from what we can see from these plants is that they were high in protein and energy (high kilajules) AND they died out almost exactly when dinosaurs did.


Ok, so why couldn't it have been the flood that wiped them out? you said yourself they died out the same time as the dinosaurs. Thats just as much evidence for a great flood than it is for evolution.

Quote
I COULD go into other areas, like ice age evolution


 Every bit of evidence for an ice age could just as easily be credited to a flood.

Quote
That virus's are evolving all the time in responce to powerful anti-virus's


That same thing would happen with or without cross species evolution, it proves nothing other than that if a single bacteria has a gene that makes it immune to something all the bacteria produced by it will also have that same gene.

Quote
And more importantly, the fact that HUMANS have evolved from being 4 foot high everage 5000 years ago to 6 foot high average now.


Show me the evidence for this because I have never seen any.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Evolution???
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2005, 07:08:11 PM »
Its physically impossible for a creature we find was actually an amphibian (pliosaurs), to suddenly be stuck on land was not an issue. We know they are amphibian because the same ferns are found in their structure (these do no grow under the sea). A flood would NOT wipe these creatures out, pliosaurs would never have been wiped out by a flood. And because we KNOW they lived on land and the sea we also KNOW they would come between the ocean and land quite a bit, meaning they are NOT at the bottom of the ocean as the floor level of the ocean has far too much pressure for any creature that can surface, they would be crushed, like we would if we went that far down. You have no logical explanation for their extinction, and its not only Pliosaurs and its unlikely as well for Pleosaurs. Also its not only Pliosaurs and Pleosaurs that would have to have died out, Trillobites, Acrosyphamore's, and various other marine mammals that have all meraculously have died out (piece by piece over time), evolution is real my friend, even if you can't see it, you should be able to understand that.

Gum their food? Insects do not chew their food, many birds don't, neither do dolphins, and yet they have not died out, strange how that works isn't it? Dinosaurs would strip ferns and leave's with their jaggered teeth, and digestion did not require the food to be broken down any more as the body would do it for it. Much like our body would if we were to swallow something without chewing it, it would digest but its easier for our stomach to digest piece by piece.

How grass relates to evolution is that there are NO dinosaur remains that contain grass, yet grass contains virtually the same materials as fern's, so why in NO dinosaurs waste at all do we find evidence of grass?

the fact that virus's are evolving everyday indicates that life evolves. From one form to another, from one area to another. Some fish have changed the colour of their skin in order to relate to their specific environment, as it gives them more protection, is this not showing that animals evolve? And as they slowly add more features for survive are they not turning from one creature to another? Evolution my friend, although you can't see it, it is definalty there. YOU of all people should be able to understand that concept. Especially that this concept actually has evidence!
 r dominate forum

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Evolution???
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2005, 08:59:24 PM »
Quote from: "Brylian"
Its physically impossible for a creature we find was actually an amphibian (pliosaurs), to suddenly be stuck on land was not an issue. A flood would NOT wipe these creatures out. You have no logical explanation for their extinction, and its not only Pliosaurs and its unlikely as well for Pleosaurs. Also its not only Pliosaurs and Pleosaurs that would have to have died out, Trillobites, Acrosyphamore's, and various other marine mammals that have all meraculously have died out (piece by piece over time).

 
The flood would have wiped out their food supply, and since herbivores need to eat such vast amounts of plants to survive it is easy to see why a flood would cause them to go extinct.

Quote
Gum their food? Insects do not chew their food, many birds don't, neither do dolphins, and yet they have not died out, strange how that works isn't it? Dinosaurs would strip ferns and leave's with their jaggered teeth, and digestion did not require the food to be broken down any more as the body would do it for it. Much like our body would if we were to swallow something without chewing it, it would digest but its easier for our stomach to digest piece by piece.


Exactly, not having chewing teeth proves nothing, other than the fact that they didn't chew their food.

Quote
How grass relates to evolution is that there are NO dinosaur remains that contain grass, yet grass contains virtually the same materials as fern's, so why in NO dinosaurs waste at all do we find evidence of grass?


Perhaps because dinosaurs didn't eat grass. Or maybe because grass as we know it couldn't grow on a pre-flood earth (and you can't deny that a flood would spread alot of nutrients).

Quote
the fact that virus's are evolving everyday indicates that life evolves. From one form to another, from one area to another. Some fish have changed the colour of their skin in order to relate to their specific environment, as it gives them more protection, is this not showing that animals evolve?


It shows that nature adapts, which can be called evolution if you like. But it does not show that man came from an ape or that all life came from a fish type creature or that birds came from dinosaurs.

Quote
And as they slowly add more features for survive are they not turning from one creature to another?


How do we know they keep adding more features to survive? we can't observe it happening, all we can see is bacteria that already have a gene, pass that gene on, they aren't just making genes at random, that bacteria already hade the ability to have that gene, just not all of them did.


This is not related to dinosaurs, but I'm going to quote myself from another thread.

Quote
have you ever heard of Wistar? What Wistar did was make a forum that put together many of the world's best biologists together with the world's best mathmaticians. It was designed to prove the mathmatcial validity of Darwinian natural selection. It was, however, a complete distaster. The odds proved so enormous that Darwinism seemed to be mathmatically impossible. It was thereby shoved into the closet & hidden because it was an embarrasment to the Darwinists.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Evolution???
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2005, 10:04:06 PM »
Darwin is an idiot, he thought of the world through natural selection, not evolutionary selection. He was a catholic and although came up with an interesting theory, Darwinism is NOT evolutionism, evolution grew out of darwinism. Do not confuse the 2 or i might start saying how protestants are the same as born agains.

Amphibian means you can survive in either environment for survival. You cannot argue that that is natural selection, as a frog can survive in a flood and survive in a drought, same with all amphibians, for that is their definition, the ability to live in either water, or land or both. Also you did not explain why so many OTHER animals died out suddenly, such as Trillobites. And if all these thousands of marine animals, amphibians, marine reptiles and marine mammals died out, why not crocodiles, whales and fish? Why not turtles?

You seem to have forgotten what my origional argument was in relation to crewing. My argument was that life before 200 million BC we find no creatures containing the ability to chew, after that we find many. Such as Iguanadon, the first Dinosaur to have the ability to chew. After that creature nearly all, even predators developed some sort of way to chew. This seems to relate perfectly to evolution, that nature itself is learning over time to survive. Its not random as you think evolutionists believe, no far from it, the single cell learns better ways to survive via evolution, everything being created in 7 days is just not possible.

Would you like to know one of the most interesting things of evolution. You CAN see it! sure not with your eyes, but even human history reflects evolution. 2000 years ago the average height of a man was 5 foot, the average height now is 6. 5000 years ago the average height was 4 foot! Evolution is causing us to grow. You want evidence? Look at the height of all doorways in ancient  Egypt, Greece, China ect, doorways were much MUCH smaller. I'm sure not every single race on earth decided to lower their doorways simply because its a cool inconvieniance. Ask a historian, they will tell you (and no believe it or not, your priest is NOT a historian).

And of course that calculate by darwinism was a disaster. That was over 100 years ago, they didnt have calculators, or even real numbers to work with. What the heck did they calculate anyways? What COULD they calculate? The reason why evolution remains a "theory" is because if we called it fact you guys would go Jihad on us (and yes i am aware that is a muslim term, but its the same concept).

You still have nothin to say to deny that dinosaurs slowly evolved into birds, as carbon dating, strata dating and common sense analysis of the comparison of bones over time indicate.

Btw, here have a look at this

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

Good discussion btw.
 r dominate forum

Evolution???
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2005, 03:22:51 AM »
I really wish people would get their facts straight about evolution. Darwin was NOT an idiot. That's like saying Newton was an idiot just because Einstein's theories replaced Newton's. Of course, Newton wasn't an idiot, and neither was Darwin.

You all need to read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Which explains to you that evolution is both a fact and a theory, and the real definitions of the words "fact" and "theory" (for they have different definitions in science).

?

Nrg

  • 24
Evolution???
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2005, 05:29:50 AM »
Well, Brylian posted first and gave a better response then I can ever dream of getting. Anyway, you can't argue that viruses evolve. That, in itself, should show evidence of evolving life.

If you want to critisize the natural selection and call it vauge, well, go ahead. But its a question of belief then. But don't say that there are no evidence. Vague evidence, perhaps, but it is a question of belief then.
f meat is murder, are eggs rape?

?

Poorboy_Marlon

Evolution???
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2005, 07:29:56 AM »
Perhaps the genetic code is preprogrammed to evolve into steadily higher forms of life? This would allow creationism and Evolution to both be true.

?

Nrg

  • 24
Evolution???
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2005, 09:22:18 AM »
Maybe, but that's conjecture.
f meat is murder, are eggs rape?

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Evolution???
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2005, 06:14:47 PM »
Ok lets get a few things straight so you'll understand what I'm arguing here. I believe that there is a god, but I could just barly be called a christian, I don't believe most of what is in the bible because it is nothing more than a book that was written by men, edited many times where large parts were cut from it, and it has been translated numerous times changing slightly every time no doubt. I don't believe the creation in the bible but I do believe that the universe was created by a god. The only reason I believe that there was a flood is because the bible and christianity are not the only places or religions it has been mentioned in.

Some of the most horrible things in history where committed in the name of christianity, most of them by the catholic church.

I also believe that most religions are all worshiping the same god just under different names. Now, on to the discussion.

Quote from: "Brylian"
Amphibian means you can survive in either environment for survival. You cannot argue that that is natural selection, as a frog can survive in a flood and survive in a drought, same with all amphibians, for that is their definition, the ability to live in either water, or land or both.


So if they can live in either I would say that is more evidence they did not evolve, because they would have no reason to, why would they need to make changes to survive if they could survive perfectly well no matter where they were.

Quote
Also you did not explain why so many OTHER animals died out suddenly, such as Trillobites.


I would say a flood would wipe them out as well as any other creature. And that would also easily explain why they died out suddenly.

Quote
And if all these thousands of marine animals, amphibians, marine reptiles and marine mammals died out, why not crocodiles, whales and fish? Why not turtles?


Because their food source is not grass and trees and plants, crocodiles eat other animals (from my understanding) whales eat various different sea creatures such as plankton and small fish (depinding on the type of whale) and as for turtles, once again Different species have different diets. The leatherback feeds only on jelly fish, the hawksbill only on sponges, the loggerhead feeds on a selection of bottom-dwelling invertebrates and kemps ridley turtles have a preference for crabs. The green turtle is thought to be omnivorous but largely herbivorous, feeding mainly on seagrasses and algae. But they all eat sea creatures, which would not have all died out in a flood.

Quote
My argument was that life before 200 million BC we find no creatures containing the ability to chew, after that we find many. Such as Iguanadon, the first Dinosaur to have the ability to chew. After that creature nearly all, even predators developed some sort of way to chew. This seems to relate perfectly to evolution, that nature itself is learning over time to survive. Its not random as you think evolutionists believe, no far from it, the single cell learns better ways to survive via evolution, everything being created in 7 days is just not possible.


But like Poorboy said, even if they where created in 7 days that does not mean they couldn't adapt and change slightly over thousands of years. And all of them suddenly changing at about the same time would be even more evidence for a flood. Not a slow evolution.

Quote
Evolution is causing us to grow. You want evidence? Look at the height of all doorways in ancient  Egypt, Greece, China ect, doorways were much MUCH smaller. I'm sure not every single race on earth decided to lower their doorways simply because its a cool inconvieniance.


I can't deny or confirm this because I have never seen a doorway in ancient ruins. However, if you believe in the bible peoples ages shortend dramatically (from seven to nine hundred years to about sixty to eighty today) so I see no reason for peoples hight to not change as well, in fact one may have been the cause of the other.

Quote
and no believe it or not, your priest is NOT a historian).


read the beginning of my post.

Quote
And of course that calculate by darwinism was a disaster. That was over 100 years ago, they didnt have calculators, or even real numbers to work with. What the heck did they calculate anyways? What COULD they calculate? The reason why evolution remains a "theory" is because if we called it fact you guys would go Jihad on us (and yes i am aware that is a muslim term, but its the same concept).


Actualy that happend in 1967 and they did have calculators, what they calculated was the mathmatical probability of evolution and found that it was almost mathmaticaly impossible. The reason evolution remains a theory is because it can't be proved, and it can't be fact unless it can be.

Quote
You still have nothin to say to deny that dinosaurs slowly evolved into birds, as carbon dating, strata dating and common sense analysis of the comparison of bones over time indicate.


you said yourself they where all wiped out at around the same time, which indicates that they didn't "slowly evolve" into anything. They simply died out.

Quote
Btw, here have a look at this

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html


Again, read the beginning of my post.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Evolution???
« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2005, 12:41:54 AM »
OK first I'll address parts of the article posted by EnragedPenguin:

Quote
I suggest that it does no such thing, for several reasons. First, the fossils do not occur in this order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom (i.e., long ago) are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts.


This is partly true. Although as time goes on a species doesn't necessarily evolve and they also don't necessarily evolve into more complex organisms either. Sometimes simpler works better (or is atleast sufficient). That is why simple bodied species are still in existence today and have also been found in higher layers of the fossil record alongside more complex creatures. For the fossil record to be contradicted you need to find a complex bodied organism towards the bottom not simple organisms near the top.

Quote
In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. To be honest, the entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking.


The reasons fully formed fossils appear abrubtly in the record is because the organisms before them consisted of bodies too simple to be preserved in the record.

Quote
A case can perhaps be made for the order of first appearance of vertebrates (i.e., fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals), but vertebrate fossils are exceptions to the rule and usually quite fragmentary with the lower range of each often being extended downward with new discoveries. Most come from Ice Age deposits which sometimes contain human remains also.


Ofcourse its fragmentary, you can't just go digging and haul up a fossil record showing the perfect paths of divergent species. The word 'fragmentary' seems to be used here to negatively describe the evolutionist view of the fossil record but without any real basis, which would make me suspicious of any of the author's writings. The last couple of sentences also fail to criticize the theory of evolution.

Quote
Second, the evolutionary presentation in the textbook column implies that all life has come from one (or perhaps a few) common ancestor(s). But the Cambrian System, the lowest (i.e., oldest) level containing extensive multicellular fossils, exhibits a virtual explosion of life. Suddenly (by this I mean without the necessary ancestors lower in the column), every phylum of life is found—every basic body style, including vertebrate fish. The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many.


Fossils have now been found before the Cambrian System.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendian.html


A detailed description of the Cambrian System can be found at:
http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/palaeontologie/Stuff/casu8.htm#explo

Quote
The Cambrian Explosion

The latest Neoproterozoic to Early Cambrian fossil record indicates that multicellular life evolved into a large number of possible bauplans as soon as it got a foothold. These bauplans, or types of organization, characterize high-ranked taxa such as phyla. Although life developed to a huge diversity as seen today, probably no new phyla developed in post-Cambrian times and the number of phyla has actually decreased since. The Middle Cambrian may thus represent the time with the organizational diversity at a maximum. What are the reasons of the Cambrian Explosion? This is a question that nobody can answer with enough certainty in the moment.

Physical examination of latest Proterozoic and Cambrian rocks indicate that there was

(1)  a distinct fluctuation of carbon isotopes around the Proterozoic-Cambrian,

(2)  a dramatic increase of the d34S curve,

(3)  an increase of the global sea-level,

(4)  a distinct rise of the phosphorite production, and

(5)  a slow increase of oxygen in the atmosphere from late Proterozoic to early Phanerozoic times.

These facts form the frame of a probably complex scenario, which ecologically equals the filling of an ecological barrel. However, we only hypothesize factors that may be responsible for a dramatic increase of phylogenetic development, such as possibly simpler Cambrian genomes or a more direct translation of gene to product, which may have enabled early diversification. Other hypotheses are needed to explain the rapid evolution and diversification of hard parts. Most of those hypothesis focus on changes in the physico-chemical environment and ecological stimuli (such as the evolution of the first predators). Regardless of the reasons, the novelty of hard parts led to more efficiency and improvements in the performance of animals and so is directly related to "advanced" animal groups such as arthropods and the group to which we belong, the chordates.


Quote
The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many.


What predictions? Is he making this up? Even if there are predictions I'm sure paleontologists would not consider them reliable due to the complexity of the situation (described above).

Quote
Third, these diverse forms continue up the column (i.e., throughout time) with much the same appearance possessed at the start. The term stasis describes the tendency to "stay" the same, remain "stationary" or "static." Some body styles go extinct as you come up the column, but no new basic styles are introduced.

Lies, all LIES!
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Evolution???
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2005, 01:19:50 AM »

Evolution???
« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2005, 01:59:22 AM »
Quote from: "Mark the Illuminatus"
You all need to read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html.

 :( What was wrong with my arguments? Or are you saying there is no point in having this argument since evolution is a FACT?
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Evolution???
« Reply #19 on: November 10, 2005, 02:08:51 AM »
Information on speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Make sure you atleast read the part on isolating mechanisms. For some reason this is hardly ever mentioned in debates but it is fundamental to speciation.

It also makes perfect sense.

(Isolating mechanisms) + (the fact that genes are passed from one generation to the next) = EVOLUTION

There really isn't much need to diverge into discussing the Cambrian period and coming up with crappy 'evidence' for evolution. Stick to the basics.
 :(
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Evolution???
« Reply #20 on: November 10, 2005, 03:04:57 AM »
Quote
have you ever heard of Wistar? What Wistar did was make a forum that put together many of the world's best biologists together with the world's best mathmaticians. It was designed to prove the mathmatcial validity of Darwinian natural selection. It was, however, a complete distaster. The odds proved so enormous that Darwinism seemed to be mathmatically impossible. It was thereby shoved into the closet & hidden because it was an embarrasment to the Darwinists.


I'd like to get my hands on these results. I've heard that the main focus of the forum was on the likelyhood of evolution due to random mutation (Not the other mechanisms of evolution). These claims may have been altered a little by some Creationists who are willing to stretch the truth to push their agenda.

 :(
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Evolution???
« Reply #21 on: November 10, 2005, 08:42:26 AM »
Quote from: "Brylian"

The government is much weaker than u think, just because they have the military does not mean they control everything. Theres no way divided governments across the world (each having different religious beliefs) would agree to this as well as all the major economic classes.... it's illogical and just couldn;t happen. Think with ur brain, not with what someone else tells you to believe.


Actually, the only governments that would have to be in on the conspiracy are ones with space programs.

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Evolution???
« Reply #22 on: November 10, 2005, 09:25:48 AM »
There is no need to start going into the Cambrian area because we are talking about dating fossils to hundreds of millions of years ago and the only reliable method for dating is carbon-14 which can only be used to date back to about 50000 years ago, all the other methods can have variables of millions of years which (in my view) makes them very unreliable.

Let me rephrase what I said in my original post, There is evidence of evolution, plenty infact as long as when you say evolution you mean nature adapting and changing slightly over the course of many hundreds of years, however, if you mean evolution as in humans evolving from some sort of Ape creature (which is what most people mean when they say evolution), than no there is no evidence for this at all and it is nothing more than a guess.
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

?

EnragedPenguin

  • The Elder Ones
  • 1004
Evolution???
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2005, 09:11:39 AM »
Quote from: "Goethe"
I've heard that the main focus of the forum was on the likelyhood of evolution due to random mutation (Not the other mechanisms of evolution). These claims may have been altered a little by some Creationists who are willing to stretch the truth to push their agenda.

 :(



Thats exactly what it was about and they proved that it was not possible to have evolution through random selection, and when you set aside  randomness you are left with design, which would require "purposive planning by an Intelligence."
A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

Evolution???
« Reply #24 on: November 13, 2005, 12:09:02 PM »
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Goethe"
I've heard that the main focus of the forum was on the likelyhood of evolution due to random mutation (Not the other mechanisms of evolution). These claims may have been altered a little by some Creationists who are willing to stretch the truth to push their agenda.

 :(



Thats exactly what it was about and they proved that it was not possible to have evolution through random selection, and when you set aside  randomness you are left with design, which would require "purposive planning by an Intelligence."

It is now understood by many biologists that random selection due to mutation is unlikely and not the driving force of evolution, however, that still leaves natural selection, genetic drift, isolating mechanisms and whatever else.
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Evolution???
« Reply #25 on: November 13, 2005, 12:31:20 PM »
Quote from: "Virgo"
flatman: I'm one of those "fucking retarded christians" and I would highly appreciate it if you could stop making generalisations that aren't true.


I second that.  :)

Evolution???
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2005, 12:33:23 PM »
Quote from: "Superhead"
Quote from: "Brylian"

The government is much weaker than u think, just because they have the military does not mean they control everything. Theres no way divided governments across the world (each having different religious beliefs) would agree to this as well as all the major economic classes.... it's illogical and just couldn;t happen. Think with ur brain, not with what someone else tells you to believe.


Actually, the only governments that would have to be in on the conspiracy are ones with space programs.


Or, anyone with an air force...airlines would also have to be in on it, as would all kinds of shipping, telecommunications that use satellites and worldwide radio transmissions, air traffic controllers, astronomers, seismologists, cartographers, the list is practically endless.  Basically, at least 25% of the world would have to be in on this to make it work out, or someone would screw up and fly off the end.  At 40,000 feet, you'd have no trouble clearing a 150 ft ice wall.

?

pspunit

  • The Elder Ones
  • 98
?
« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2005, 03:06:58 PM »
Are there satellites according to the flat-earth theory? If so, what do they orbit? If not, how do things like satellite TV, cell phones, and google earth work?
Three people of different nationalities walk into the bar. Two of them say something smart, and the third one makes a mockery of his fellow countrymen by acting dumb."

Re: ?
« Reply #28 on: November 15, 2005, 04:06:45 PM »
Quote from: "pspunit"
Are there satellites according to the flat-earth theory? If so, what do they orbit? If not, how do things like satellite TV, cell phones, and google earth work?


Satellites are well-placed weather balloons...satellite TV uses hidden government antennas...and Google earth, of course, is a conspiratorial teaching tool.

?

Scorpion

Evolution???
« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2005, 05:46:14 PM »
I remember one time I went to the beach, and I had my 5 year old sister with me.

At the time, I was like 8, and I looked at the map of the world. I was only a kid, and the map of the world was the whole world on paper, not a globe.

So, I was like "where is the rest of the world?" and the teacher told me that's the whole world.

The first thing that came to my mind was "the earth is flat".

But, as I first said, I was at the beach with my little sister, and I was looking out into the ocean. I could see the horizon, and some boats were dissapearing.  I was a bit confused at first, but then my little sister said "The earth is round like a ball" she holded up a beach ball, a part of the beach ball covered in sand. "If I move the ball back, the sand slowy dissapears". She held the ball in the air, and rolled it with her fingers back slowy so the sand would be going in the opposite direction. "So, the boats dissapear too, because the world is round".

Money makes the world go round, but hold up, according to a particular, moronic group, MONEY MAKES WORLD GO FLAT!! "HAHA I HOPE YOU FALL OFF THE EDGE, I HAVE NO LIFE, THUS I ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THE WORLD IS FLAT, I"LL KILL YOU WITH MY INVISIBLE LAZERS TOO HAHA!!!!!!!!!!LOL"

People who think the world is flat = nerds.