Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105643 Nov 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
SBT, bones decompose over time. Populations do not follow Kent Hovinds simple exponential curve.
If Ayala tried to make his claim 40 years ago he was wrong then. The only reason that our population made be "devolving" is because now we can takes care of the genetically inferior.
In the past natural selection culled the human race, stopping "devolution". We don't have that now, we have evolution.
So fossils deteriorate in such a short amount of time? What about the massive number of fossil remains your side date as multiple MY's old? Ayala was right. Culled the human race? So your "cave men" were cannibals. In the Karoo in SA they estimate the fossil deposit at 200,000 sq miles ranging from 2000-5000ft deep. An average fossil/sq meter cal was done giving an estimate of 150,000,000+ fossils exposed on the surface alone. As no bottom to top evolution is observed, these appear deposited in one watery event and are collectible today. So that is the math. Use math to calculate the number of people who lived on earth with the most conservative factor and you get around 10X26th power. The universe would not contain the volume of bones.
Again uniform measurements fail you.

http://www.rae.org/pdf/800Billion.pdf
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/the-quest...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105644 Nov 11, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
So fossils deteriorate in such a short amount of time? What about the massive number of fossil remains your side date as multiple MY's old? Ayala was right. Culled the human race? So your "cave men" were cannibals. In the Karoo in SA they estimate the fossil deposit at 200,000 sq miles ranging from 2000-5000ft deep. An average fossil/sq meter cal was done giving an estimate of 150,000,000+ fossils exposed on the surface alone. As no bottom to top evolution is observed, these appear deposited in one watery event and are collectible today. So that is the math. Use math to calculate the number of people who lived on earth with the most conservative factor and you get around 10X26th power. The universe would not contain the volume of bones.
Again uniform measurements fail you.
http://www.rae.org/pdf/800Billion.pdf
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/the-quest...
My oh my, you are quite the moron today. Very few bones become fossils. For land based animals it is incredibly small, less that one out of a million on average. Perhaps even less than one out of a billion.

Massive fail on your part. And please, don't make the incredibly idiotic mistake of comparing fossils from sea life to fossils form land life.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#105645 Nov 11, 2013
I also see that you could not find any valid sources for your links. In case you didn't know both of your sources come from creatard sites and therefore are not valid.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105646 Nov 11, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't seen any cartoon. All I have seen is the fossil evidence showing intermediate stages.
And contrary to your claim of a predetermined end, each of those stages was adaptive in its own right. Meaning the process was not directed towards creating the 3-boned middle ear but could have stopped at any point in the transformation if there was no adaptive advantage to further change.
This is the mistake you guys always make. Whenever you launch your silly IC claims, you always forget that intermediate stages are only intermediate in hindsight and that these adaptations may have had completely different functions at any point in the past.
The Corti is a soft tissue organ and not expected to be found in 200 million year old fossils under normal circumstances so we have no record of its appearance and development. No biologist would assume it showed up in its current state from the beginning.
But luckily we DO have the evidence of the bone assembly changing gradually from reptilian to mammalian. In fossils that are simultaneously making other changes to the skeleton in accordance with that same transformation.
Evolution explains that. What is your alternative? A succession of "created" species that just happen to match evolutionary expectations, just happened to appear in the fossil record at the right times? Not just for the middle ear of mammals, but for all the transformations of life so far. Where are the enormous number of fossils that would predate any possible evolutionary antecedent if evolution had not been the driving force?

Sorry, you have 1 bone to 3 bone, no 2 bone ear transition animals. and their is a pile of conflict in the lit over these hopefuls. The simplistic approach of saying it and having is a big diff. Take a chihuahua and great dane dog forms, one may choose among skeletons, line them up and claim evolution was at work, but no, a dog is a dog and the pure genetic information in the primal created dog kind,(although God was not limited to create one), allowed broad variation and adaptation, but that's not evolution. The DNA and concordant operable work together bones and organs are not so simplistically evolved, they require an end-game plan designed by the Almighty through DNA information and must be reconciled.

We know tens of thousands of creatures have gone extinct, many in recent years. A Fossil deposit may hold a variety of kinds dieing together in a catastrophic event but are found to be utterly unrelated to each other in taxonomy in the beds. When a big picture is taken in a fossil bed evolution is nowhere to be found, but evo claims support from the fossil record as paleontologists line up those that seem similar in homology from different sites, but they are mistaken. The quote I referenced mentions that actual appearance and functions are very difficult to determine from bones. With so many creatures now extinct and no new one's forming, things are proved to be running down, not up. This is what the bible teaches, creation is over.

In Oregon for instance, one localized deposit contains mice, opossums and lemurs, all buried at the same time. As these species represent our common decent ancestors and no between kinds are found, I call this Intermediates Lost, because there never were any!

http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/the-quest...

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#105647 Nov 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
I also see that you could not find any valid sources for your links. In case you didn't know both of your sources come from creatard sites and therefore are not valid.
See the Pic of the Karoo? and there are a pile of references in those links. But pretend like the Karoo doesn't exist, all 200,000 sq miles of it.(Specially never let that place get into a HS textbook, like a proton motor, the kids may get confused, or think your side is wrong). The sources are valid from licensed professionals that have every right to print their findings and summaries.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105648 Nov 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The examples of French, Italian, Latin, Greek, Danish, German, Swedish, Spanish words each finding their way into the English language
Also the links to several academic articles describing the history, roots and development of the English language
It seems to me than in your deliberate ignorance you have typically ignored those examples.
‘No’‘you’‘have’‘not’ asked ‘me’ that “question” at ‘all’ but ‘you’ are ‘welcome’‘to’‘your’“vain” lies ‘regarding’ the ‘language’ of the ‘English’“nation”
Note some people may find the usage of the words in quotes (and semi) to be highly amusing in the context but I guess it will be way beyond you
Besides what does that matter, times change, language changes and grows and develops with that time. The English language of today is not the same as the English language of 100 years ago and going back much further you would be hard pressed to understand it, over 200 years it has changes beyond recognition.
Like i said, the same with other world languages. All those developments never took place outside, but inside England, that is why it started there.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105649 Nov 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The examples of French, Italian, Latin, Greek, Danish, German, Swedish, Spanish words each finding their way into the English language
Also the links to several academic articles describing the history, roots and development of the English language
It seems to me than in your deliberate ignorance you have typically ignored those examples.
‘No’‘you’‘have’‘not’ asked ‘me’ that “question” at ‘all’ but ‘you’ are ‘welcome’‘to’‘your’“vain” lies ‘regarding’ the ‘language’ of the ‘English’“nation”
Note some people may find the usage of the words in quotes (and semi) to be highly amusing in the context but I guess it will be way beyond you
Besides what does that matter, times change, language changes and grows and develops with that time. The English language of today is not the same as the English language of 100 years ago and going back much further you would be hard pressed to understand it, over 200 years it has changes beyond recognition.
Yes. That is why English is a complex or compound language with many words having the same meaning. So, what is your point?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105650 Nov 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The examples of French, Italian, Latin, Greek, Danish, German, Swedish, Spanish words each finding their way into the English language
Also the links to several academic articles describing the history, roots and development of the English language
It seems to me than in your deliberate ignorance you have typically ignored those examples.
‘No’‘you’‘have’‘not’ asked ‘me’ that “question” at ‘all’ but ‘you’ are ‘welcome’‘to’‘your’“vain” lies ‘regarding’ the ‘language’ of the ‘English’“nation”
Note some people may find the usage of the words in quotes (and semi) to be highly amusing in the context but I guess it will be way beyond you
Besides what does that matter, times change, language changes and grows and develops with that time. The English language of today is not the same as the English language of 100 years ago and going back much further you would be hard pressed to understand it, over 200 years it has changes beyond recognition.
Academic Articles?
You or any one else can never bend or change the fact, English started and it belongs to England. The Genesis, metamorphosis, etc, all took place in a place called, England. Learn!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105651 Nov 11, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a silly little man!
Your Francophobic behavior doesn't change a thing in the world, and in case you haven't noticed, the locals aren't exactly bonding with you in some kind of Anglo-Saxon/Germanic tradition.
All you've done is reinforce everyone's belief that God, if there was one, isn't on your side, and since nobody ELSE is, they're inclined to gang up on you. You tend to play that kind of martyr but you're such an ugly little troll, it's not like anyone will be sympathetic either.
Anyway, I'm mostly Irish with a touch if just about anything else American. If I'm part French, so be it! I spent a good deal of time along the Rivera and found it a very pleasant place.
No matter the accolades, praises and the oppositions, truth always prevails. Yes or no? I don't care where you came from. I fight and stand for the truth.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105652 Nov 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
No, academic evidence is academic evidence and I choose not to waste any more of my time on your stupidity over the subject of language
You are indeed the stupid. If you can not answer the question, then your claims are wrong. Simple. English started in England, period.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105653 Nov 12, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it's from the 16th century Italian word "independente."
What is your point - the U.S. Declaration of Independence belongs to Italy?
" Independente ", and " independence ", does the two words sounds the same in your ears?
Why are you guys not using the former instead of the latter?
Just accept the fact, English belongs to England.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105654 Nov 12, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it's from the 16th century Italian word "independente."
What is your point - the U.S. Declaration of Independence belongs to Italy?
And again, are English, Italian, and other languages the same, even though linguistically, they came from one another or the same source?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105655 Nov 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Too bad. This language thing is wicked awesome for sure. Yall, or is it yawl been up the crick and down the holler on this.
I was hoping that we might be able to examine the English language in the United States. Since it is the same language. Perhaps take off our sombreros and set down over some tortillas and whoop this puppy. Roundup this whole language thing in a big ole word rodeo before we all end up in the calaboose. Whadda ya say buckaroos?
Why are some of your folks here against the truth that, English started in England?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105656 Nov 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does origination convey ownership of a language?
Repetition!
It was first spoken there before any other. Ok?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105657 Nov 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
So? Why does that imply ownership?
First and foremost, unlike some others here, do you accept that?
Back to your question. Despite the death of Faraday, his name is still ringing on electricity, has the owner.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#105658 Nov 12, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Why are some of your folks here against the truth that, English started in England?
Honestly Charles, I am no expert in languages or their origins. I suppose it depends on the extent you go back in history and where you draw the line between existing and pre-existing languages. I could be persuaded that it started in England given the proper evidence and constraints, but I couldn't say that owned it in the sense of property.

Take care Charles. I am off to play cards with Morpheus.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105659 Nov 12, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
So? Why does it starting in Europe mean there is a 'baton' of ownership?
My whole point is that you are making claims of ownership of a language, which I see as being community property and not *owned* by anyone. It is irrelevant where it started or who uses it. It is still not *owned* by anyone.
Ownership implies the power to dictate use and *nobody* has that power concerning any natural language.
That was why i said, ownership by origination. They started it, and they spread it. After that spread they can not reclaim it back again. Ok?
My point is that, other nation that takes it as first language must recognise where it started from, like France.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105660 Nov 12, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Not sure that Erectus knuckle walked all the time, but there certainly did in some situations. However Neanderthal were completely bipedal
I recently spent a few days at la roque st christophe examining the grave and bones of a 55 thousand year old Neanderthal site, no sign of the stooped posture required for knuckle walking.
That Maz eh? Go figure.
No, Erectus did not knuckle walk. Their skeletons were just as upright as ours.

Check out the closely related Ergaster, Turkana boy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy

Its about 1.5 million years old - a million years before the earliest archaic Sapiens let alone Neanderthal and modern Sapiens.

Knuckle walking would have disappeared quite early in the Australopithecene lineage, millions of years ago.

Maz is just showing us in her special way that she is not qualified to comment on any of this. Her specialty is merely quote mining and getting it wrong.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105661 Nov 12, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Charles, I think you are trying to use "ownership" too broadly beyond the scope of what it means. As you say, languages, at least after the original development, arise from pre-existing languages and over time even these continue to diverge to some degree.
American English is not exactly the same language as the one spoken in the UK. There have been strong influences from African, French, German, Spanish and Native American languages that show up. Even today with such a large country there are regional differences and even different accents.
What I would say is that American English is derived largely from the parent language of British English which itself arose from a combination of influences and languages of Western Europe. If you want to claim the English own the English language, you can, but ownership implies a number of conditions that do not occur with regards to a language and a better term seems more applicable.
Many thanks, Dan.
But just like French, and some other languages, the original home is well referrenced unlike English language.
And again, you said, English sprang up from other European languages, but those languages are not the same as English.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105662 Nov 12, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, you have 1 bone to 3 bone, no 2 bone ear transition animals. and their is a pile of conflict in the lit over these hopefuls. The simplistic approach of saying it and having is a big diff. Take a chihuahua and great dane dog forms, one may choose among skeletons, line them up and claim evolution was at work, but no, a dog is a dog and the pure genetic information in the primal created dog kind,(although God was not limited to create one), allowed broad variation and adaptation, but that's not evolution. The DNA and concordant operable work together bones and organs are not so simplistically evolved, they require an end-game plan designed by the Almighty through DNA information and must be reconciled.
We know tens of thousands of creatures have gone extinct, many in recent years. A Fossil deposit may hold a variety of kinds dieing together in a catastrophic event but are found to be utterly unrelated to each other in taxonomy in the beds. When a big picture is taken in a fossil bed evolution is nowhere to be found, but evo claims support from the fossil record as paleontologists line up those that seem similar in homology from different sites, but they are mistaken. The quote I referenced mentions that actual appearance and functions are very difficult to determine from bones. With so many creatures now extinct and no new one's forming, things are proved to be running down, not up. This is what the bible teaches, creation is over.
In Oregon for instance, one localized deposit contains mice, opossums and lemurs, all buried at the same time. As these species represent our common decent ancestors and no between kinds are found, I call this Intermediates Lost, because there never were any!
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/the-quest...
pelycosaur to therapsid to early mammal shows the transition very plainly.

its true that a fossil chihuahua and a great dane might be mistaken for different species. But so what? Does saying that some species have huge morphological variation (especially when human breeding has been at play), mean that all examples of change, especially a continuum from say Australopithecis -> Georgicus _> erectus -> heidlebugensis -> sapiens is invalid?

Of course not. Don't be silly. There are NO sapiens fossils at the time of Australopithecus (various). So if you are saying the normal morphology of hominids 3 million years ago was very different but they are "really the same species" then who am I to argue with your chosen classification patterns? You simply have to look at the fossils and know their dating to see the obvious continuum of change over the period.

The underlying reality is that there was a change over time, consistent with the predictions of evolution.

The truth you always avoid is that there are NO verified fossils of any creature that violates the nested hierarchy of evolution. No creature is found before its necessary evolutionary antecedents could have existed. The rabbit in the Cambrian, again.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Name something you shouldn't do naked .... (Mar '14) 5 min Crystal_Clear722 330
Woman Switches Seats on Plane, Spends 3 Days in... 10 min Bubbletoes 10
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 13 min Enzo49 25,855
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 15 min TALLYHO 8541 37,762
only TWO words! (Nov '08) 16 min Crystal_Clear722 25,608
Amazing video: Monkey rescues electrocuted friend 43 min A Noted Ferrerman 9
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 48 min stray-cat 152,790
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 6 hr Chilli J 3,014
More from around the web