A well thought-out argument against anti-evolutionists

Hey, if you who you get laid by is determined (partially) by the way you dress, it's natural selection. Of course, there are other factors involved. Like God and charisma.

 

Phantom... strange way to show what is trying to be proved but kudos... for my theory look for my post refering to Epiphany's in the Fundamentalist Christian thread by World of Dan.

P.S. you all realize you're arguring with a Fundamentalist Christian who is 54 and to stuck in his ways to see other possiblities?

 

By the way,

http://www.biologynews.net/archives...ecovers_ancient_whale_in_egyptian_desert.html

Read up on whale evolution. It even mentions -gasp- transitional species.

 

Actually it's not that I'm stuck in my ways, I'm quoting believers, and former believers in evolution, who are now refuting many of those long held pet theories of theres.

 

Ho hum.

So how about replying to some points, campbell? Opus and I gave you some good material.

 

my point is the crusades, the inquisition, 9/11... more people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. and i've actually read the bible, and i found it pretty fascinating actually. but to say that all of the matireal in it literally occoured is irrational.

i do believe in god, i find it's kind of silly to consider all the beauty that i see around me as a mere coincidence. however, i don't understand why god would want everyone to worship him every 7 days. that seems like what a very insecure person might do. i don't really get the point in creator based religions, i understand why some might want to be involved with it but not me.

i prefer to have a respect for god, but i find no need to worship him. he's supposed to know that i respect him/her/it, right? i think religions like buddhism are more useful than christianty.

well that got a little off topic, but if you show me a human skeleton in the same level of the fossil record as the dinosaurs then i'll give up my belief in evolution. so far they haven't, so i'm going to say that evolution is a well drawn out theory and is problably the most significant science has come up with so far.

 

I would like to join in the discussion, but let me first say that I read the first 2 pages of the thread before I realized that it was 15 pages long. Suffice to say, I skipped over a bunch of pages...but I hope I won't be repeating the same stuff.

Secondly, I noticed a lot of people are coming into this thread convicted in their beliefs, and with the goal of enlightening the other side. If this is to be an exchange of ideas, we need to be open to other ideas and use facts to prove points. Having said that, I will agree to argue and discuss with anyone willing to acknowledge all of my argument.

I remember reading in my Biology book on the theory of evolution and how we still see it in action today. In Darwin's study of Finches on the Galapagos Islands, it was noted that due to environmental effects in certain years the only nuts left on the island were harder-shelled than the ones the birds had been used to. Over only a few years their beaks got bigger in response to this environmental change. This is evolution in progress! However, if you do not believe the validity of a study conducted by Darwin, you will see that this trend can be found anywhere in response to an environmental change if someone was to take the time to study a population.

Another arguement I heard when watching a program on tv. The eye is a very complex organ, and in the program they spoke of how the muscle is in fact much less efficent than it could be, and that it is what we have with the evolution that has taken place up to this time. If we were in fact created by god in his image, why don't we have efficient eyes? Don't you have blind spots?

We even are evolving now! Humans' mouths are getting smaller, as well as our baby toe. Also we are growing taller. There is a reason so many of us youngin's need braces

There is also the evidence of homogenuous structures present in many different species

Also, it is interesting to note that many animals in their fetal stages, from totally different species look almost identical


There seems to be in fact, a great deal of evidence in the fossil record. There aren't fossils from every ten years that show a change, because obviously it would be practically impossible to find fossils from the species from every ten years over centuries showing a change. With what we have, however, we are able to make a theory able slow steps leading to the species present now on earth:



In love,

Diana

 

Well there are a number of spots now where that have found human foot prints that are actually planted in the fossil prints of dinosaurs. There was a lake bed in Texas where they found this and the scientest said this could not be true. So they said if it were true, that they should unearth more of the lake bed. They did, and guess what? They found more human and dinosaur prints running together. Naturally, National Geographic did not do a story on that find, did they. I know there was a book out some years ago titled, Foot Prints in Stone, that talks about it. Since that book came out, I believe they have found a number of sites like this.

 

Well I have to tell you as far as evolution demonstrated in the fossil record, there is none. If I am wrong, show me. For every report that supports evolution they bring out the brass band, but as soon as they find out the evidence is is not what they first thought, or it was faked, it just disappears with little comment. And that is the way it has always been with Evolution.
And when strong evidence comes out which refutes evolution the scientest ignore it. Yet even this is beginning to change. Evolution states that the dinosaurs died out 70 million years ago, and they claim that man has been around for 3 million years. Yet now they are finding fossil prints of dinosaurs with human prints planted in the middle of the dinosaur prints. Those who believe in the Theory of Evolution donot what anything to do with this kind of evidence.

 

Oh you mean the point you tried to make that the most obvious transitional fossil was the Archaeopteryx. Well as it turns out, ARCHAEOPTERYX is a FAKE.
National Geographic found out about this from a Chinese Doctoral student who was also a member of the National Geographic Fossil Team. Archaeopteryx is a composite fossil. National Geographic stated, that if they had known that, they never would of run the artical. Now you can take your Archaeopteryx and put it back on the shelf. Another embarasment for National Geographic, Evolution, and voodoo science.

 

Actually, NOVA ran a special on that.

And you might want to read this: http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/creationism_footprints.HTM

It's simply not true. No man has ever walked the same ground within 60 million years of a dinosaur, let alone the few hours necessary to create these tracks. Even most Creationists have let go of this vain notion.

 

Check this out, also.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3209/01.html

"The remains of three-foot-tall humans are discovered on a remote Indonesian island."

 

Archaeopteryx: Not A Hoax.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

I believe what you were trying to say, campbell34, is that ArchaeoRAPTOR was a hoax. Which it was. Here's a link - it's even a creationist site!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4229news3-2-2000.asp

In fact, that same site will tell you that Archaeopteryx is not a hoax - though they stubbornly claim that it's a bird and not a transitional fossil, as the other sites will clearly show.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp

 

I believe your report was from the 80s. In June of 1995 M. Coppedge went back to the site again and stated. " Since I had the largest foot in attendance, size 13, my bare foot was used as a comparison for the extensive video tapes and photographs that documented the excavation. As my foot was both beside the footprint and in it for quite a while, I was able to examine it very closely. Without any doubt, it was a human footprint. I testify that everything I witnessed I have reported faithfully and without exaggeration. M. Coppedge.
It stated in the artical that one of the evolutionest was so upset at what he saw their that he took a hammer and smashed some of the foot prints to keep others from seeing them.
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm
you might want to check that out.

 

It was a hoax in so much that it was reported to be a transitional fossil. Thats what I ment.

 

That's because this matter was settled in the 80s. Like I said NOVA ran a special and the Institute for Creation Research actually retracted its claim that the tracks were human.

This page is worth reading: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part1.html

 

No, that's not what you meant.

What you describe here is the false composite fossil from China called Archaeoraptor, as shown in the link that I have previously posted.

 

hmm. this thread is full of so much bullshittin on teh same points over and over.

ok , campbell, can you show me one of your magical sites that shows that we have fossil evidence of every single tiem period, every single part of the world?

you want transition? fish to bird

well inbetween that tehre are amphibians, and fish stages between amphibians and fish. there is even a fish that lives on land!

there are lizards from amphibians

and lizards to bird

that bird thing is not a bird. if it was a bird then it would have a beak. it doent have a beak, its got a jaw and its got teeth. so its a bird, but with the head of a lizard. hmm. no, because it would obviosuly have to have HALF scale HALF feathers to be transitional wouldnt it?

you may notice that feathers are to scales, as various ferns are to figs.

there is transitional evidence. however since we in fact do NOT have fossils of every species from every single time period, we also dont have teh species in between.

we have sections.
if you have a multicoloured string, and you cut it at various places, you will get distinct colours. the more you cut, the more distinct colours you will have. however, say, instead of the 3 basic primary colours we know of, there were 200 000 primary colours, and stages in between of course.

if you made 200 000 cuts in the string, you would find 200 000 distinct colours. some may be similar, depending on where you cut. but none the same.

you would be argueing, where are all teh shades in between?

well since we as humanity did not chose when these cuts along the ribbon of evolution were made, we cannot tell you exactly whats in between, we can only see the patturn of change and the reason of c ut and a few other things too.

since we cant go abck and cut the ribbon wherever we want, we wont find those bits in between. however, weve got so many stages in between, and we understand the way the colour is generated on the ribbon enough to say that there is a colour wheel across it. you would be saying, since we can only see the colours we see, then god got eh ribbon and painted these distinct colours on. when really there was a scientific patturn that increased or whatever the frequency of the colours more and more.

we have observed this because we have about an inch of the thousand mile ribbon in front of us and the colour is slowly changing as we speak.


of course to move the analogy across to evolution we can say that we have a huge curtain of ribbon pieces and the many ends of the ribbons we have today are different . like a tree, the ribbons branch off eachother. colours are one dimensional, animal life is like 10^10 dimensional. and evolution is not a continuous cycle of an unchanging rate of change. neither does the ribbon have to be.
the principle remains the same



all of the ark theory was disputed to the nth degree in another thread that a few of us participated in a few months ago.

at any rate the defenders of the ark were using very different ideas to what the creationists/creationist in this thread is using.

campbell, when you want to back up a point like 'there is no archaelogical evidence', you cannot use a quote from someone saying 'there is no archaelogical evidence'. you could only show us there is no archaelogical evidence by taking the archaelogical evidence we are putting forth to you and proving it false. you have not done this.

we dont care what you were tought at school. fossil evidence isnt as extensive as you think.

of course we are going to have a fossil record of every animal we know of. all the ones alive today would have bones in the ground; and the only ones before that, which we know of, would be the ones that we have fossils for.

also, as said evolution will not be a continuous cycle. the dmoninant species will stay around for much longer, increasing the chance of fossil record.

an animal that is half way between stages is going to be phased out quickly.

d = developed species
D = developed species that is a bit differnet from original but still same species (for example, tall humans now as opposed to short in the past)
> = change of environment or interaction with environment
e = evolutionary process


dddddddddddDDD>eeddddddddddddddDDDDD>eedddddddddddddDDD>
eeedddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddDDDDddddDDDD>eddddddddddddDDDDDDDDDDDD


if you can imagine that these amounts of d's and D's (the same thing in terms of species) outnumber the amounts of e's by less than the amount that full species outnumber the amounts of the few between species we have spoken of, you would still find that the chance youll get an 'e' is very very small.


i hope my analogies have helped
> = reason for change

 

sorry my posts are very long but please read, the longer the post, the more effort has been put in! lol

and i had to adress a few points in detail for campbell to understand

 

I hope your details work... but if doesn't have a way to argue them soundly (which I don't believe he will) all he'll do is reitereate his earlier posts and ignore all of the details you have made.

I think I might end up having to start arguing in this one instead of the one by Wolrd of Dan. Bio major against fundamentalists... whoopdedoo.