Originally posted by Lana
Anyway, we've supplied evidence. The fact that you choose to disregard it does not mean that it doesn't exist. Now post your evidence that an intelligent being exists.
Where is the missing link?
How come hybridization does not exist between animals of different types?
How is it that you can claim a theory valid..if the most pertinent part of the theory is missing?
Those are the questions no one has acknowledged on the opposing side...those are valid questions..
Hybridization amongst animals of in the same "family" is not new concept, and supports Creationist arguments of various species of animals within a particular family, being of one particular kind.
It can not be duplicated between animals coming from different "families" (ie cat cross breeding with a dog...Human crossbreeding with an ape)
The fact that animals of the different kinds can not breed and produce intermediate offspring, and that "no intermediate forms" have been found..essentially defeats any relation between hybridization..and the concept of Macro evolution
hybridization has been known to to produce fertile offspring. Anyway..using yours/others assumption that hybridization more than likely causes sterility...you are essentially defeating the argument of hybridization producing sexually functional intermediates
Please address these points Lana...quit avoiding them..
They are all questions that have been addressed, actually, you just won't listen to anything that contradicts what you think.
And like I said in my post before this, read my entire post before replying. Like I said: It wouldn't be called a missing link if it were found. Everything was initially a missing link but over time scientists have been able to fill in many gaps so there are only a few holes left, and they are searching to find this missing information. Once they've been found, they're no longer referred to as missing links. Bother to read what is said.
Hybridization can't occur between animals of different types because of DNA differences. No, it doesn't happen between humans and apes now, but I think that's more because of the taboo on bestiality then because it's not possible 😉 And btw, can you name some hybrids that have been known to be fertile?
Also, hybrids are not usually classified as being a new species, so it is also irrelevant to this argument.
And as I addressed the missing links thing numerous times already, your third question is totally moot.
But, however, it is something that I could ask you, and have, many times. How is your 'theory' valid when the most important part (the existence of an intelligent being) is missing?
Keep in mind, wear assuming all conditions above to be perfect, in order for the individual to even have a slim chance of producing wealth from the nickel...
This should have been stated during the initial comparison.
That's a very big assumption. There is no definitive evidence to support that claim. Recorded history goes back to about 6000 years. One could assume that as being more than enough time for one to observe some form of Macro Evolution. The historical record, however, has shown us that anything resembling this process, has yet to have been observed.
Why can one assume that macro evolution would take place over the course of 6000 years? According to the evolutionary theory, the earth is billions upon billions of years old. it took billions of years for humans to become human, for those single celled organisms to become the dominant species of the planet. I really don't think 6000 years is enough for a major change in anything.
Again no one is debating the adaptation..but it is not the same as the concept of Macro - Evolution.
You know, most scientists don't even recognize a difference between Micro/Macro evolution. They often don't even use the terms because using different terms insinuates that they have a different definition, when in reality they both mean more or less the same thing - "Something changing". We've seen minor forms of evolution or adaptation. Macro Evolution is more or less an extreme form of adaptation, nothing more.
My answer is that faith-based beliefs that rely on tenuous assumptions, not backed by scientific data or reasoning, and followed/practiced/revered by a select group of people as representing truth..should be classified as a religion.
Not only is this not an answer to my question, it also is pretty much the definition of Creationism.
Evolution does have scientific data and reasoning behind it. Again, we've seen evolution taking place, it can be observed and experimented with. Just because there's no factual proof of it doesn't mean the theory isn't scientific. Can we see any form of creationism taking place?
In fact, scientific proof doesn't exist, science is ALL theories, it's based on theories. Science never claims to have an answer to an absolute degree, because it's always possible to learn more about a particular theory or topic. Evolution isn't perfect, it isn't provable, but there is scientific evidence of it and it IS a scientific theory because it's always changing, it's (no pun intended) evolving. This is one the main criteria for a scientific theory, it's also why creationism can never be a scientific theory. Science doesn't deal in absolutes.
Creationism can't change, it claims to have all the answers right off the bat, it deals in absolutes. Anything that can't be scientifically explained right now gets the default answer of "god did it", which is not scientific. They claim falsely to have all answers, based on blind faith, evolution doesn't lie, it doesn't make up answers. Evolution is always changing, scientists are always finding out new things about it, discovering new fossils, making new observations through experiments or studies, etc. Creationists do not, they claim they have every answer right away. You can't observe creationism, you can't experiment with it, etc.
Also, whob, I hate to sound repetitive, but really, I've looked at all the links you've provided, read all of the quotes you provided as "evidence" or "proof" of creationism, and really, there is none. I couldn't find any actual evidence or proof of anything on any of the web pages or quotes. All I've seen is some peoples opinion (which doesn't matter, unless that person is a judge who is deciding whether or not creationism should be taught in a school, in which case, the judges rarely side with creationists). As I said before, the only evidence that creationists have is poking holes in the evolutionary theory and filling it with their own stuff or simply saying "well, evolution isn't factual, there's no proof, so therefor creationism is just as valid scientifically as evolution since neither can be pr oven" - That simply isn't the case.
I'll finish with a quote Ushgarak posted earlier in this thread that has gone overlooked. The quote is from an evolutionist rebutting an attempt to try and get evolution pulled from a classroom.
"The phrase "scientific fact" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "scientific proof." Science, unlike mathematics, does not consist of a collection of airtight proofs. Nor is it a large body of "facts." Science is a method of learning about our universe and how things work. The concept of "proof" does not exist in science, because the essence of science is being always open to new evidence and new explanations, which may call into question tentatively accepted theories.
Religion, on the other hand, does pretend to know certain so-called "truths" with absolute certainty, through faith. Faith, basically, is a determination to remain convinced of some proposition, despite any and all evidence or reasoning that might ever be offered to the contrary. Science is distinguished from religion in that it does not rely upon faith, but rather upon evidence and reason.
While it is not possible to conclusively "prove" a scientific theory, it is possible to disprove them. Just because a particular explanation is accepted upon faith by some or many people does not automatically make it scientifically disproved. However, if an explanation is merely a matter of faith, in that there is no evidence or reasoning to support it, then that idea has no place being taught in [science class].
Into this environment, a decade or so ago, steps Dr Hovind,, a self-described "creation science evangelist" who offers a substantial reward to anyone who "proves" evolution. He states that evolution refers to the origin of time, space, matter, higher elements from hydrogen, stars & planets, life from inanimate matter, kinds (species), and not just gradual changes within species.
Aside from the fact that there is no such thing as a "scientific proof" it seems absolutely unclear to me just what specifically we are being asked to prove. For example, it makes no sense to prove "the origin of time." Someone needs to make a specific statement that might tend to explain whether/how/when? time began. I'm betting several people have taken a crack at making such a statement. I know Steven B. Hawking, for one, has. Which theory is Dr Hovind suggesting is the "evolution" explanation that is to be pr oven?
If it were possible to "scientifically prove" anything, a contest such as this one would need to be judged by impartial, fair-minded people. Dr Hovind refuses to identify the judges. Presumably they would be hand picked creation science buddies who accept some scriptural explanation on faith. In other words, they are determined to reject any and all possible alternative explanations.
The existence of this unclaimed quarter million dollar standing offer is constantly thrown out as evidence that "evolutionism" is a faith because has not yet been pr oven. The fact is, though that there is considerable convincing evidence for a variety of theories across the wide range of scientific thought that Hovind calls "evolution." The fact that more is being learned every day about these matters, and that current thinking is constantly revised is proof that such scientific theories are not accepted on faith, but rather provisionally.
The fact that nothing can ever be scientifically pr oven is not proof that every idea is necessarily accepted on faith. Dr Hovind and those who publicize his unclaimed reward would have us believe that faith means "not knowing for sure but believing anyway." In fact though, what faith is, is "being determined to believe something, despite any and all evidence or reasoning that might ever be offered to the contrary." And it is exactly this kind of stagnation of thought that the founders (of the U.S.) sought to protect us against with the first amendment.
And as an addendum to that from another contributor:
"Actually... it’s perfectly acceptable to ask for evidence, and evidence is available in abundance. There is such a compelling accumulation of observation and reason, in fact, that practically the entire scientific community is united in agreement that evolution is the best explanation that we have so far of the current diversity of species. What we don’t claim to have is proof of the sort that is sometimes available for mathematical puzzles. It is by remaining open to the possibility of a better explanation that we avoid the kind of mental stagnation that defined the Dark Ages (AKA the Age of Faith)...
...Creationists continually taunt, "But where are the transitional forms?" Every time another piece of the puzzle is put into place they want to know where the fossils are that show that the discovered animal was ancestor to any current day species. When another fossil is found that seems to fit directly between the first one and the same current day animal, they again call for "transitional forms." Apparently, somebody’s going to have to find a fossilized pregnant monkey whose fetus is a little girl or boy before some will be satisfied.
This whole problem was brought into bold relief for me a few days ago in reading the thoughts of one such person who is calling for transitional forms. He said that he would not be satisfied that human beings (who all have two eyes) have descended from amoebas (who have none) until archaeologists uncover a one eyed creature. This is just a reminder that there will always be some people who can never be convinced. There are even some still who believe the earth is flat."
Originally posted by Lana
They are all questions that have been addressed, actually, you just won't listen to anything that contradicts what you think.
Not true..you all have not come up with any legitimate proof that transitionals exist..
And like I said in my post before this, read my entire post before replying. Like I said: It wouldn't be called a missing link if it were found. Everything was initially a missing link but over time scientists have been able to fill in many gaps so there are only a few holes left, and they are searching to find this missing information. Once they've been found, they're no longer referred to as missing links. Bother to read what is said.
So essentially what you mean is...you agree with me..no missing links have been found..to substantiate the validity of your theory..
Hybridization can't occur between animals of different types because of DNA differences. No, it doesn't happen between humans and apes now, but I think that's more because of the taboo on bestiality then because it's not possible 😉
It hasn't ever happened..and it never will. 3000's of years have passed, and it still hasn't happened..seriously what does that tell you?
And btw, can you name some hybrids that have been known to be fertile?
Tigons, ligers, horse/zebra combos, sheep/goat hybrids, and a crap load of others have proven to be fertile..Any way you still didn't answer the question of sterility among hybrids..
Also, hybrids are not usually classified as being a new species, so it is also irrelevant to this argument.
Well if that's the case you might as well throw the whole concept of linking hybridization and speciation out the window..seriously do you even realize what your admitting to in this argument..your essentially saying that the two animals that created the hybrid are not of a particular destinct species?
And as I addressed the missing links thing numerous times already, your third question is totally moot.
Not really you just waffled your way around it..which is what you generally do when you don't have an answer...
But, however, it is something that I could ask you, and have, many times. How is your 'theory' valid when the most important part (the existence of an intelligent being) is missing?
Your missing the point dear...FAITH is what drives both of our religions..that has been my point all along..
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Not true..you all have not come up with any legitimate proof that transitionals exist..So essentially what you mean is...you agree with me..no missing links have been found..to substantiate the validity of your theory..
It hasn't ever happened..and it never will. 3000's of years have passed, and it still hasn't happened..seriously what does that tell you?
Tigons, ligers, horse/zebra combos, sheep/goat hybrids, and a crap load of others have proven to be fertile..Any way you still didn't answer the question of sterility among hybrids..
Well if that's the case you might as well throw the whole concept of linking hybridization and speciation out the window..seriously do you even realize what your admitting to in this argument..your essentially saying that the two animals that created the hybrid are not of a particular destinct species?
Not really you just waffled your way around it..which is what you generally do when you don't have an answer...
Your missing the point dear...FAITH is what drives both of our religions..that has been my point all along..
No, I did NOT say that no missing links have been found. What I said that initially everything was a missing link. Once one of these links was found, it was no longer classified as a missing link. Or is this concept too complicated for you to wrap your head around?
How can you know that it's never happened? Not every single damn thing that's happened in the history of the world has been recorded. And regardless, hybridization has NOTHING to do with evolution. You were the only one trying to link hybridization and speciation.
I haven't waffled my way through anything here, that's all you've been doing, though.
I do not blindly believe in anything. Faith in anything is not part of my life. I make my decisions based on research.
Have you ever heard of homologous and analogous structures?
Originally posted by BackFire
This should have been stated during the initial comparison.Why can one assume that macro evolution would take place over the course of 6000 years? According to the evolutionary theory, the earth is billions upon billions of years old. it took billions of years for humans to become human, for those single celled organisms to become the dominant species of the planet. I really don't think 6000 years is enough for a major change in anything.
Bad assumption..6000 years is a damb long time to observe something reminiscent of Macro evolution to have occured..especially if one adheres to the idea of creatures..things...constantly evolving...
You know, most scientists don't even recognize a difference between Micro/Macro evolution.
Only the ones who believe in evolutionary theory. Many scientists don't accept the theory...and realize it for what it really is..a human glorifying religion titled "HUMANISM"
Not only is this not an answer to my question, it also is pretty much the definition of Creationism.
And essentially answered the question as to what Macro Evolution should be classified as...
Bad assumption..6000 years is a damb long time to observe something reminiscent of Macro evolution to have occured..especially if one adheres to the idea of creatures..things...constantly evolving...
Says who? Why would you assume this? I'm curious. Why is the assumption that 6000 years isn't enough time for major evolution a "bad assumption" when considering the earth is, according to evolution, billions of years old?
Only the ones who believe in evolutionary theory. Many scientists don't accept the theory...and realize it for what it really is..a human glorifying religion titled "HUMANISM"
Not quite, most scientists agree that evolution is the best explanation available at this time.
And essentially answered the question as to what Macro Evolution should be classified as...
According to you. But that was not my question. In fact, you tiptoed around my actual question with a bunch of nonsense. The answer to my question is there is no biological and logical barriers that would halt micro evolution from eventually becomming macro evolution.
Is this all you have in retort to my above post? I wrote quite a lot and you seemingly ignored most of it. Shux, I'm a bit disapointed in you, my friend.
Originally posted by Lana
No, I did NOT say that no missing links have been found. What I said that initially everything was a missing link. Once one of these links was found, it was no longer classified as a missing link. Or is this concept too complicated for you to wrap your head around?
To hard for me to understand..please be more specific..do you agree that a transitional fossil that links man to beast has been found..simple yes or no will do..
How can you know that it's never happened? Not every single damn thing that's happened in the history of the world has been recorded. A
What does that tell you about the validity of Macro Evolution?
And regardless, hybridization has NOTHING to do with evolution. You were the only one trying to link hybridization and speciation.
No actually you were the one who brought up hybridization when you started talking about Darwin and the Finches...but thank you for admitting the correctness of my argument...
I haven't waffled my way through anything here, that's all you've been doing, though.
You want me don't you..😆 😆
I do not blindly believe in anything. Faith in anything is not part of my life. I make my decisions based on research.
Than why do you still have FAITH in a missing link...that's not very scientific..besides..wouldn't it be better...to believe in something full of love in kindness existing..instead of the evolutionary.."every man for himself" gospel...
Have you ever heard of homologous and analogous structures? [/B]
I just noticed something..everytime you are unable to challenge a particular argument you bring up another argument...lol...
Originally posted by BackFire
Says who? Why would you assume this? I'm curious. Why is the assumption that 6000 years isn't enough time for major evolution a "bad assumption" when considering the earth is, according to evolution, billions of years old?
Your assumption is based on another bad assumption...the earth being billions of years old...we've already mentioned the accuracy of dating techniques before in this thread..go do a search on Carbon dating and Isochron Methodology. Both are very skeptical dating methods...
Not quite, most scientists agree that evolution is the best explanation available at this time.
Some do..some don't. Another bad assumption. Regarldess that's poor logic...just because a lot of people agree something to be true..it doesn't mean that it is. Most people thought the world was flat when Columbus was alive..
According to you. But that was not my question. In fact, you tiptoed around my actual question with a bunch of nonsense. The answer to my question is there is no biological and logical barriers that would halt micro evolution from eventually becomming macro evolution.
That's nonsense..the fact remains that it macro evolution hasn't happened, can not be experimentally induced, has not been observed anywhere within historical record..Why do you automatically assume that something that doesn't exist can happen..as I have stated before..that's a pretty big assumption..and again...that assumption is based on FAITH..seriously...
Is this all you have in retort to my above post? I wrote quite a lot and you seemingly ignored most of it. Shux, I'm a bit disapointed in you, my friend.
I just didn't feel it necessary to continue repeating myself. All of what you posted had been rebutted multiple times in this thread..you can post as much crap as you want..however, it doesn't take away from the fact that your belief has yet to be substantiated by valid scientific evidence.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
To hard for me to understand..
Everything's too hard for you to understand, ain't it, Whob?
End of discussion. Debate closed.
You want me don't you..😆 😆
Originally posted by Trickster
Everything's too hard for you to understand, ain't it, Whob?Nobody wants you, nor ever will. One of the bad things about the human race is that sometimes genes like yours are carried on.
Some things are hard to understand..others aren't take for example the fact that I've already been able to understand the concept of you being a fool..who obviously will never amount to anything in life..your life has essentially reached its peak on this thread..enjoy it while you can my friend..😆😆😆...this is as good as its going to get...😆😆😆
End of discussion. Debate closed.
Actually... I have a good life, the best things in it being the ability to walk away from this arguement any time I like and return to friends (you know what they are?) and family who enjoy my company and understand the value of a debate without the immaturity present in your tiny little mind. I have a good life, I am not deprived of anything basic and am on the good side of being spoilt.
Also unlike you, I realise the stupidity of taking segments of people's posts and ignoring the rest of them. What I did was to merely show you what it's like to be us reading your pathetic 'arguements'.
Anyone who's life can reach it's peak on the internet (as yours surely does) really has very little life in them. Perhaps you should stop in this arguement which you refuse to see the futility of and just accept you are wrong. Not only wrong, but an arguement which has made you look like a complete wanker in the process. Pity really...
I'd expect better of a religous person hiding behind the poorly-constructed screen of science. Now haul your fat ass of the chair which will no doubt surely break and head back to school, where a brain as porly developed as yours belongs. Perhaps they'll let you take special classes.
Originally posted by Trickster
Actually... I have a good life, the best things in it being the ability to walk away from this arguement any time I like and return to friends (you know what they are?) and family who enjoy my company and understand the value of a debate without the immaturity present in your tiny little mind. I have a good life, I am not deprived of anything basic and am on the good side of being spoilt.Also unlike you, I realise the stupidity of taking segments of people's posts and ignoring the rest of them. What I did was to merely show you what it's like to be us reading your pathetic 'arguements'.
Anyone who's life can reach it's peak on the internet (as yours surely does) really has very little life in them. Perhaps you should stop in this arguement which you refuse to see the futility of and just accept you are wrong. Not only wrong, but an arguement which has made you look like a complete wanker in the process. Pity really...
I'd expect better of a religous person hiding behind the poorly-constructed screen of science. Now haul your fat ass of the chair which will no doubt surely break and head back to school, where a brain as porly developed as yours belongs. Perhaps they'll let you take special classes.
I'm sorry..I was wrong..this post is the highlight of your life..much apologies...enjoy it while you can buddy..it only gets worse from here...😆😆😆
Originally posted by Trickster
Everything's too hard for you to understand, ain't it, Whob?End of discussion. Debate closed.
Nobody wants you, nor ever will. One of the bad things about the human race is that sometimes genes like yours are carried on.
Don't blame his genetics, it's how he was raised coupled with his total refusal to learn about the world around him. LOL, to evolve.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Bad assumption..6000 years is a damb long time to observe something reminiscent of Macro evolution to have occured..especially if one adheres to the idea of creatures..things...constantly evolving...
Evolution doesn't need occur constantly. It is most often, according to theory, brought about by a NEED for change. And 6000 years is a drop in the bucket considering the 3 billion year history of the planet.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Don't blame his genetics, it's how he was raised coupled with his total refusal to learn about the world around him. LOL, to evolve.
So you agree that most factors that make us who we are are environmental..eh...😆..forget it that's the topic of another debate...
Evolution doesn't need occur constantly. It is most often, according to theory, brought about by a NEED for change. And 6000 years is a drop in the bucket considering the 3 billion year history of the planet.
You forget to mention..that nothing reminiscent has occured and no evidence has been provided to support your assumption..
Originally posted by whobdamandog
So you agree that most factors that make us who we are are environmental..eh...😆..forget it that's the topic of another debate...
Ignorance isn't always genetic. The retarded kid down the street can't help he's retarded. You can, you simply choose not to. And if you're addressing homosexuality, then you continue to illustrate your stupidity.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You forget to mention..that nothing reminiscent has occured and no evidence has been provided to support your assumption..
Nor has there been any for yours. And in reality, there's a lot of supportive evidence. It's just either too far above or beneath people who subscribe to your line of reasoning.
ah come on guys, lets not go into petty insults. We all know this is just a silly "discussion" where we have to proof every single aspect of science for someone who only believes in his own words and not into facts. Look at the bright side: you brush up on some things in the process 😉
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Your assumption is based on another bad assumption...the earth being billions of years old...we've already mentioned the accuracy of dating techniques before in this thread..go do a search on Carbon dating and Isochron Methodology. Both are very skeptical dating methods...
for your Isochron Methodology, scientists say of this method already that it is accurate without one single problem 9 out of 10 times, that one time can be easily figured out by:
1.Additional tests on the same data involved in the isochron plot (such as that for mixing).
2. Cross-checks between different isotopes with different chemical properties.
3. Attention to the geologic setting from which the samples were obtained.
Please, brush up your research on this
Originally posted by yerssot
ah come on guys, lets not go into petty insults. We all know this is just a silly "discussion" where we have to proof every single aspect of science for someone who only believes in his own words and not into facts. Look at the bright side: you brush up on some things in the process 😉
Actually the insults don't bother me. I've continually rebutted everyone of your so called "facts" in this thread. Most of the insults have been directed at me after I've made a pertinent argument, that someone has been proven wrong about..like BUDDHISM for example...lol..
this post just shows how much you know from science. Anyone who is even slightly at home in science will laugh at you when they read this.
Carbon Dating can go 5730 years back in time for dating, after that there is a chance the "noise" of the galaxy interferes with it. That is why Carbon Dating is not used as much as some people would think.
Yersett you are truly a fool. You've essentially illustrated my point in your response...I've mentioned multiple times in this thread that Carbon Dating only goes back to a bit above 3000 years..and you've essentially proven my point with your figure above......either way..this illustrates my point all along about the Earth not being "billions" of years old. Please don't respond anymore...let someone else with a tad bit more scientific knowledge...you are embarassing yourself...
for your Isochron Methodology, scientists say of this method already that it is accurate without one single problem 9 out of 10 times, that one time can be easily figured out by:
1.Additional tests on the same data involved in the isochron plot (such as that for mixing).
2. Cross-checks between different isotopes with different chemical properties.
3. Attention to the geologic setting from which the samples were obtained.
Again..you have no idea what you are talking about..I already figured this out when you stated the Dalai Lama is the only one who would be able to classify Buddhism as a religion..however..as you continue to post on this thread..it becomes more apparent..
Here read this...
Radiometric rock dating, the methodology of determining the date of formation of a rock sample by the well-established rate of decay of the isotopes contained, depends on accurately determination of the starting points, the original concentrations of the isotopes.Many methods of estimating these beginning concentrations have been proposed, but all rest on tenuous assumptions which have limited their acceptance.
This most accepted of all methods has two variations, the mineral isochron and the whole-rock isochron. The logically-sound authenticating mechanism of the mineral isochron is applied to the whole-rock isochron, where it is invalid. The long-term stability of the whole-rock is applied to the mineral, where it is inappropriate.
When the isochron data are the result of the rock being a blend of two original species, the diagram is called a mixing line, having no time significance. This paper shows that all whole-rock isochrons are necessarily mixing lines. It is noted that by analogy the mixing-line logic casts strong suspicion on the mineral isochron as well.
Since only whole-rock isochrons play a significant role in the dating game anyway, isotopic geochronology can be rather generally discredited.
*note fossils are almost always found in mixed rock formation...
Isochron Metholodogy is very inaccurate my friend..as I've stated about a million times in this damb thread..
Please, brush up your research on this