Jbill311
The Blind Critic
OK. This is what I can find from the interval that I’ve been gone. If there’s anything I missed, quote yourself and I’ll try to find it.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
So it says that: There is an even simpler, more reasonable explanation for this. four thousand years ago, a flood devastated the earth. The flood fossilized the animals, and thus, as you are not going to get a kangaroo fossil in north America, in some areas/elevations you are not going to find certain types of creatures, and since insects can fly and float to an extent, they are not going to be submerged in mud and water as quickly as the rest, and therefor won't be fossilized in the same layer. so now he is saying that he only has some of the families. Well if evolution is true, there should be at least one transitional form, i mean, how lucky would us creationists have to be if there were no transitional forms to be found anywhere? yay, so he has no transitional forms and an excuse he made up that in order for it to be valid, you have to believe that evolution is true. So he made up this long and boring rant comparable to that of supershadow in an attempt to clarify in evolutionary terms why he has no evidence for evolution.
1. Flood Geology.
First and foremost, where did the water for the ‘flood’ come from? Where did it go? How did it fossilize the animals it drowned in the exact order that would provide evidence for evolution? Why would the heavier animals not all be at the bottom, rather than the mixture of sizes and kinds of animals that we have now? Why are some insect fossils found in layers lower than those of animals that
won’t float?
2. There are transitional forms, and we have posted several links to lists, and all I can say to you is ARCHAEOPTERYX.
3. As for the relative scarcity of fossils, and especially of transitional species, there is a combination of factors that work against us. First and foremost, with punctuated equilibrium the time period of transition is very small, and so the probability of an animal that is fossilized being a transitional form is much smaller. Also, the factors that lead to a fossil are very rare, as well. The conditions must be within a very specific range, or the carcass will be destroyed and not preserved. In all honesty, we can be amazed at the quantity of fossils that we do have.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I could argue that you can't prove to me that when we are creating art surrealistically, you are actually viewing one of the many dimensions in which the earth is viewed through an entirely different perspective, but lets keep this in evolution vs creationism, shall we? And I understand that matter behaves differently at extreme temperatures. And can you prove that nuclear fusion changes one element to another, or are you arguing another "theory"?
I’m sorry, but what does art have to do with art?
As for fusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NucleosynthesisEssentially, lighter atoms are smashed together to form energy and heavier elements. I would really rather not debate this, as there is not even a hint of controversy or ‘wiggle room’ and it has little bearing on the truth of the Theory of Evolution.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Ok, so the bat evolved from an animal that LOOKS LIKE a shrew. But somewhere along the lines of those transitional forms, there has to be a bat that can't fly. An animal that looks like a shrew isn't going to sprout wings and fly in one generation. SO at some point, you must have a bat/thingthatlookslikeashrew that has huge thumbs and useless forelimbs. And it is supposed to survive because it is the fittest. Hit me with another one. And no, I understand that modern day animals don't change into other modern day animals, but I also understand that ancient animals don't change into different classes of modern day animals.
[QUOTE=11096688]Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
[B]
uhuh, and when have we ever observed the slightest mutation to be beneficial? In all our years of academic biologic study? and yes, i understand the premise of zoology. Species can intermingle and bring forth young; class/kind cannot. You can get a species of dog to breed until it is fat, has long floppy ears, and short legs, but its never going to be able to be a futuristic animal that resembles a rabit.
You can’t just personally redefine a word: mutation (in this context and to use the meaning of another context is intellectually dishonest) means a change in the nucleotide-base sequence of a gene or DNA molecule.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
One of your so called scientists who would throw out an incorrect theory at the drop of a hat...
Extraordinary claims merit extraordinary proof. You have supplied none. Creationist tactics are essentially saying “but theres not nuff proof 4 evilution and its teh devil!!!111” and then slipping creationism in as the other choice. This scientist wasn’t telling us to cling to evolution, but to doubt creationism. There IS a difference.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Hitler's master race was based on your idea of evolution. If we were to kill off the weaker species of Homo Sapien, than the fittest would evolve faster, and our race will transcend into glory. This theory caused the slow and systematic deaths of MILLIONS.
Ahh, I’ve been waiting for this. My trump card. Argumentum ad Hitlerum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_lawEven if we ignore the argument from Hitlerism, it fails on its own merits. Hitler used the german word for evolution ONCE in Mein Kampf. He does however, make several allusions to the superiority of whites (Aryans) over other races as
supported by the bible.
From http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/nazis.htm
“White Aryans, Hitler writes, are the special creations of God, the "highest image of the Lord", put here specifically to rule over the "subhuman" races: "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." (all quotes from Hitler, Mein Kampf, online version)
Hitler’s inspiration was of religious, not secular origin. Also, Stalin, arguably the greater violator of human rights rejected Darwinian evolution.
Fail. You just said that it has been repeatedly tested or widely accepted. there is a whole contingency of christian, muslim, and hindu scientists who don't accept it, so it can't be widely accepted. It has never been tested, and it can't be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Lets not get nasty, because it is you who have ‘failed’. You have stated that scientists with a bias reject Evolution. Who cares? Impartial, objective scientists have tested it, and used it to make predictions about the natural world.