PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     why evolution cant be true

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if u want 2 no y it cant be true ask me.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 4:15 PM on September 2, 2007 | IP
Epp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Go ahead, tell me.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 6:40 PM on September 2, 2007 | IP
boog123

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd like to know also


-------
No more affirmative action, yes I'm black.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 6:40 PM on September 3, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

all of life is simply to complex to have all happened by accident. One cell is more complex then a space shuttle and how just appeared? One scientest once said that the chances of a cell spontaneously appearing are is good as the chances of you taking apart a 747 into all of its individual pieces, throwing all the pieces in air, and all the pieces coming back down, assembled and ready to fly. its impossible.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 9:56 PM on September 3, 2007 | IP
Epp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

all of life is simply to complex to have all happened by accident. One cell is more complex then a space shuttle and how just appeared? One scientest once said that the chances of a cell spontaneously appearing are is good as the chances of you taking apart a 747 into all of its individual pieces, throwing all the pieces in air, and all the pieces coming back down, assembled and ready to fly. its impossible.

Who says that a cell spontaneously appeared? Not a scientist, for sure.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 11:04 AM on September 5, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

srry. rong words. the chances of a non life elemant becoming a life form is impossible.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:29 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
Epp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Says you?
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 7:14 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

where, in all have history has nonlife become life?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:26 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

where, in all have history has nonlife become life?

What does this have to do with evolution???
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:51 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
Epp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from creationest6 at 10:26 PM on September 5, 2007 :
where, in all have history has nonlife become life?



As far as we know, on Earth. Possibly other places, too. We are looking into it.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 02:36 AM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Darwin of Suburbia

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Firstly, I just have to confirm the assertion that no scientist is claiming that  a cell appeared from nowhere. More likely a phospholipid bubble became populated by some upwardly mobile complex molecules, and the rest is history.

Secondly, the 747 analogue was offered to me once by a rather dim christian I know (who failed her science exams this summer, by the way), but as a comparison for the likelihood that the earth would form due to gravity. I think what was probably said was that the likelihood of the world being formed as it is today from the big bang would be equivalent to said 747 construction.

There are two reasons why an evolutionist would ignore this comment:

1) Evolution does not happen by chance, it is no more chance than an olympic sprint. The best man wins, except for the case of external input or unforeseen circumstances.

2) Even if it was chance, and the likelihood was equal to the 747 appearing, it would not matter, due to the anthropic principle. If it hadn't happened, we either wouldn't be here talking about it, or we would be talking about how amazingly unlikely it was that we evolved to have 4 eyes and green skin. But, as "luck" would have it, we have 2 eyes, beige skin (in my case) and we are here.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 06:14 AM on September 6, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

then were did the cell come from?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:01 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Epp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know. Possibly from the sea, maybe from clay crystals. Are you going to say: you don't know, therefore evolution can't be true? That would be the fallacy of argument from ignorance. Now, be honest: do you know?
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 6:12 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What does the first formation of life have to do with the theory of evolution????  Are you ever going to answer that question?  Because the 2 theories are very different and are not directly related.  Even if we don't know how life first formed, it doesn't affect the theory of evolution at all.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:53 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

answer me


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:28 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

answer me

You first!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:18 AM on September 7, 2007 | IP
Epp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, why is it that evolution can't be true?  Still not addressing this point, Creationest?

 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 4:04 PM on September 7, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

u first


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 09:50 AM on September 8, 2007 | IP
Epp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from creationest6 at 09:50 AM on September 8, 2007 :
u first



Ok. Evolution is true because there's evidence for mutations, natural selection, common descent, etc. Care to point out where I'm wrong and why?
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 11:10 AM on September 8, 2007 | IP
Epp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, I guess you concede the point.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 12:02 PM on September 9, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

u are so stubborn. the bible has being proven highly historicly acurate


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 7:49 PM on September 10, 2007 | IP
Epp

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I thought you conceded that evolution is true. That's what we debate in this thread, right?

 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 03:46 AM on September 11, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

u are so stubborn. the bible has being proven highly historicly acurate

No it hasn't.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:16 PM on September 11, 2007 | IP
Klown

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think a first step if trying to argue would be for both sides to atleast admit the 'possibilty' of being wrong.


-------
~ Klown
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 10:03 AM on September 12, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wat side are u on?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:09 PM on September 12, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think a first step if trying to argue would be for both sides to atleast admit the 'possibilty' of being wrong.

Except we all ready know the Bible is wrong, no world wide flood, it's simply impossible, it never happened.  I don't have to admit the possiblity that I'm wrong because the bible has already been proven to be historically inaccurate.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:56 PM on September 13, 2007 | IP
Architect

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from creationest6 at 9:56 PM on September 3, 2007 :
all of life is simply to complex to have all happened by accident. One cell is more complex then a space shuttle and how just appeared? One scientest once said that the chances of a cell spontaneously appearing are is good as the chances of you taking apart a 747 into all of its individual pieces, throwing all the pieces in air, and all the pieces coming back down, assembled and ready to fly. its impossible.

The probability of a cell's exact complexity being  the result of a finite range of possibility is infinitely more likely than if it was created by an omnipotent being.

Quote from creationest6 at 10:26 PM on September 5, 2007 :
where, in all have history has nonlife become life?

It isn't proof of abiogenesis but I guess God was just bored when he put bacteria on Mars?
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 06:55 AM on September 15, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

architect, are u a creationest or an evolutionest?


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:09 AM on September 16, 2007 | IP
Oxy-gene

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Klown at 12:03 PM on September 12, 2007 :
I think a first step if trying to argue would be for both sides to atleast admit the 'possibilty' of being wrong.


Agreed. Being scientific includes being able to change your mind if new evidence comes into being.

So, about the cell thing. The first "proto-cells" weren't probably all that complex as the cells of today, as already said:
Quote from Darwin of Suburbia at 08:14 AM on September 6, 2007 :
Firstly, I just have to confirm the assertion that no scientist is claiming that  a cell appeared from nowhere. More likely a phospholipid bubble became populated by some upwardly mobile complex molecules, and the rest is history.


So the first living creature probably had
a) said phospholipid bubble
b) some molecules that enabled it to produce energy
c) something to store information in (DNA, RNA)
d) something that reacts with the DNA to produce something

Then the biological evolution started. These little bubbles slowly evolved into more complex cells, capturing more molecules and even other, different bubbles, and creating more DNA.

I don't claim it went exactly that way, but it's possible.


-------
Surprise!
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 6:10 PM on September 22, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ya. right.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 12:04 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



What's so hard to believe?
Photos of Protocells


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 2:41 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

its impossible.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 3:43 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Then what are those things in the picture?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 3:54 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION
The following are just some of the little publicised facts which contradict the "proven fact" of evolution theory.

1. FOSSILS
(A) The oldest rocks (Pre-Cambrian) have been searched for many years but no undisputed fossils have been found. The Cambrian rocks immediately above, however, contain numerous fully developed complex invertebrates. This sudden appearance of life in the strata has been a major problem for the evolutionists (Fig.1).

Minute objects found in Precambrian strata are claimed to be primordial cells. Even if they are there is an enormous gap between such microscopic objects and the complex invertebrates such as the trilobites which suddenly appear perfectly formed in the Cambrian strata above.

(B) Despite searching the strata for over 100 years, fossils which would close the gaps between classes and even species have NOT been found, as many evolutionists are now prepared to admit. In proposing their new theory of "punctuated equilibrium", Drs. Gould and Eldredge accept that these gaps still exist.


2. THE HORSE 'SERIES'
When challenged to produce a series of fossils demonstrating the transition of one species into another, the 4-3-1 toe evolution of the horse is frequently presented as evidence. However,

(A) Over twenty different geneological 'trees' have been drawn up by various scientists. This is because there are 250 similar looking animals to chose from. Those which contradict the series are ignored.

(B) All the known species of birds and mammals appear and 'diversify' within the last 150 Million years according to the evolutionists geological time scale. At this rate, the 70 million years it has taken simply to modify a horse's hoof is far too large a proportion of the time since mammals first appeared. There is therefore something seriously wrong with the time scale.

(C) Some animals used in the sequence have differing numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae, indicating that various species have been used to compile the series, but this is ignored as this contradicts the theory. Most of these fossil animals have been found in America. Yet the first fossils of modern horses they are supposed to lead up to are found in Europe. (Present American horses are a recent introduction). Two evolutionists - Prof. George Gaylord Simpson said "It never happened in nature" and Charles Deperet called it "a deceitful illusion"


3. ARCHAEOPTERYX
This bird is claimed to be the link between reptiles and birds. But it had perfectly formed feathers which are very complex in design. There can be over a million minute hooks on one feather. Nothing which is half way between a feather and a reptile's scale has ever been found. An animal with half developed wings could neither run nor fly properly and would be quickly eliminated. Finally, Archaeopteryx is irrelevant, as a fossil of a normal bird has been found in strata of same dating as Archeopteryx.


4. BIRDS
(A) Evolutionists cannot determine how birds evolved by studying existing species. Special types of skulls, feathers, hollow bones, etc., appear 'randomly' in existing species making classification impossible.

(B) Nesting habits of some birds cannot be learnt, e.g. the mud nest of the House Martin has to be right first time or the eggs will fall.


5. GENETIC EXPERIMENTS
After breeding over one million fruit flies, they still obstinately remain fruit flies! There is a wide variety of dog BREEDS but they are still dogs. Species bred beyond limits develop serious deformities. Darwin bred pigeons and knew this fact but in his "Origins of Species" he glossed over what is an impassable barrier to the "evolution" of one species from another.


6. RECAPITULATION THEORY
This is the theory that the development of a fertilised germ cell retraces the history of the species.(e.g. that gill 'slits' in the human embryo are relics of its fish ancestry). This theory, once hailed as the Biogenic LAW is now discredited even by evolutionists. However it is still implied in some books. Prof. Haeckel (a fiery supporter of Darwin) faked his drawings to support the theory but was convicted by a University court.


7. ORIGIN OF LIFE
(A) Passing a spark through a mixture of gasses forms simple amino acids but -

(B) they are only the very simplest of 'building blocks' used in the formation of larger organic molecules.

(C) they must be caught in a cold trap to prevent the spark from destroying them

(D) a reducing (non oxygen) atmosphere is necessary.

(E) any amino acids forming would have been destroyed by the ultra-violet rays of the Sun. These conditions would not have occurred in nature.

(F) Even allowing millions of years, there has still been insufficient time or material in the whole universe for very complex organic molecules to have formed BY CHANCE.


8. PEPPERED MOTH
There are two varieties - the light and the dark. Elimination of the light variety is NOT evolution. They are still Peppered Moths. Kettlewell's experiments were specifically designed to get the results he wanted and were seriously flawed. Results contradicting his evolutionary views were ignored.


9. WHALES
Evolutionists are unable to explain how the whale, which is a mammal, went back into the sea without leaving any fossil evidence of intermediate forms.


10. DUCK BILLED PLATYPUS
This strange animal has:

(A) a soft, sensitive "bill" and lays eggs like a duck

(B) fur like an animal,

(C) webbed and clawed feet,

(D) pockets in its jaws to carry food,

(E) a spur on rear legs which is poisonous like a snake's fang.

A question for the evolutionist- what were its ancestors?


11. RADIOMETRIC DATING
This method is used to give an age to rocks (and thereby the fossils they bear) but it rests upon several unprovable assumptions, e.g.

(A) Radioactive conditions are the same today as they were millions of years ago.

(B) The 'half life' of the elements is constant.

(C) No products of the radioactive decay were originally present nor have been added since the formation of the rock.

These are all very large suppositions that cannot be easily checked in the field for every sample.

When the same stratum is tested by different methods or even by the same method, it frequently gives an enormous range of ages. For example, one rock gave 14, 30, 95 and 750 million years by different methods. In another case, dating of the same rock for Leakey's 1470 'Man' gave 220 million years and 2.6 million years using the Potassium-Argon method. It is sometimes said that, despite discrepancies, radiometric dating shows that rocks are millions of years old, not thousands. One answer is that the 'daughter' elements found in some rocks are naturally occurring along with many other elements. To infer vast ages from the ratios of the elements found in rocks is unwarranted. The only reason why the results of Radiometric Dating tests are quoted is that they give ages in terms of millions of years. Other methods giving only thousands are completely ignored.

All these long ages are greatly reduced due to the speed of light being VERY much higher in the past. - SEE THE SECTION ON THE DECREASE OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT ON PAGE 3 - EVIDENCE FOR GENESIS]


12. CARBON 14
This is a radioactive form of Carbon and all living organisms have a small amount of C14 within them. However, the level is not constant as the ground level activity is still rising. i.e. the amount of C14 is not yet in equilibrium. This makes the true age shorter than apparent age (Fig. 2). This method is quite unreliable for ages over 3,000 years despite datings up to 40,000 years being quoted.





-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 5:07 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's not an answer.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:18 PM on October 17, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So creationest6 can't discuss abiogenesis intelligently...What a surprise.  Creationist6, do you even know what abiogenesis is or why it doesn't have anything to do with the theory of evolution?  We're still waiting for you to post ANY accurate scientific information.  I'll bet we're in for a long, long, long wait...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:11 AM on October 18, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's quite a bit of information... Please name your sources creationest6. So I can check your work. That's what good science is all about.


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 1:34 PM on November 14, 2007 | IP
Phearful

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why does this person even get responses from you people?  Not a single post of his/her's was close to being an intelligible arguement, just a bunch of "I like God, so you people are wrong."

Idiot.
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 3:35 PM on March 27, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The following are just some of the little publicised facts which contradict the "proven fact" of evolution theory.

And they're all wrong.

A) The oldest rocks (Pre-Cambrian) have been searched for many years but no undisputed fossils have been found.

From here:  PrecambrianFossils

"What was life like 560 million years ago? The Vendian marks the first appearance of a group of large fossils collectively known as the "Vendian biota" or "Ediacara fauna." The question of what these fossils are is still not settled to everyone's satisfaction; at various times they have been considered algae, lichens, giant protozoans, or even a separate kingdom of life unrelated to anything livingtoday. Some of these fossils are simple blobs that are hard to interpret and could represent almost anything. Some are most like cnidarians, worms, or soft-bodied relatives of the arthropods. Others are less easy to interpret and may belong to extinct phyla. But besides the fossils of soft bodies, Vendian rocks contain trace fossils, probably made by wormlike animals slithering over mud."







There you go, 3 unambiguous Precambrian fossils.  Your point is completely disproven.

Minute objects found in Precambrian strata are claimed to be primordial cells. Even if they are there is an enormous gap between such microscopic objects and the complex invertebrates such as the trilobites which suddenly appear perfectly formed in the Cambrian strata above.

Well no, more than microscopic objects have been found in Precambrian strata.  Complex organisms have been found, as illustrated above.  From here:
Ediacaran biota

"The Ediacaran biota exhibited a vast range of morphological characteristics. Size ranged from millimetres to metres; complexity from "blob-like" to intricate; rigidity from sturdy and resistant to jelly-soft. Almost all forms of symmetry were present.[20] These organisms differed from earlier fossils by displaying an organised, differentiated multicellular construction and centimetre-plus sizes."

So your claims about Precambrian fossils are completely disproven.  I know creationest6 always ignores posts that refute his claims, but I can't understand why he keeps using the same sources that are invariably WRONG.  


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:16 AM on April 1, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolutionists often base the ages of different fossils and rocks off of each other. For example, if a fossil is found in a certain rock strata, that fossil will be dated according to how old the rock supposedly is. And if a certain type of rock layer is found, it will be dated according to the types of fossils found there. However, how are we supposed to know that either of these were dated correctly in the first place? In fact, this following story shows that whichever rack layers were dated off of the coelacanth fossils found there couldn't possibly be dated correctly, since they never actually went extinct in the first place.

(Taken from the National Geographic website)

May 22, 2007—Though he may have only been angling for dinner, the Indonesian fisher who caught a rare coelacanth has instead snagged a barrage of worldwide media attention.

Yustinus Lahama captured the fish—which scientists not long ago believed had gone extinct with the dinosaurs—Saturday near Bunaken National Marine Park, off Sulawesi island.

(See a map of the region.)

The four-foot (1.2-meter), 110-pound (50-kilogram) specimen lived for 17 hours in a quarantine pool, an "extraordinary" feat considering the cold, deep-sea habitat of the fish, marine biologist Lucky Lumingas of the local Sam Ratulangi University told the Associated Press. Lumingas plans to study the carcass.

Scientists were shocked when a coelacanth (pronounced SEE-la-kanth) was found off Africa's coast in 1938. They had believed the fish went extinct 65 million years ago, as did a related lineage of prehistoric fishes.

The fish has been a source of fascination ever since. Several other coelacanths have been caught in recent decades, including another in the species-rich waters of Sulawesi in 1998.

Coelacanths usually reach five feet (1.5 meters) in length, have limblike fins, and are covered in hard scales and toothy outgrowths that protect their bodies from rocks and predators.

Unlike other fish, they also give birth to live young.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 11:40 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sedimentary layers cannot be dated radiometrically, so they are dated by crossbedded igneous layers, i.e. a layer containing fossils will be dated as earlier than an overlying bed of ash or lava covering it.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:45 PM on April 5, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you are saying that it doesn't matter whether or not this coelacanth who was supposedly extinct was really extinct or not?


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 12:09 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Not really, the species that are known today are not in the fossil record.  New species are being discovered every day, a new one that was thought to be extinct is very exciting because it carries DNA evidence that makes it possible to more fully flesh out the genetic relationships between species.

Why do you think finding something that was thought to be extinct would disprove evolution?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:18 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't think it would disprove it really. I would just think that it might cause some alarm... I guess if something of more importance were found to be alive, like a dinosaur or some human-like form, it might matter more, because it would cause the evolutionary tree to be thrown off balance.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 12:24 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why?

I guess I don't understand why you might think that.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:26 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm not sure... I guess it just seems like something like that would be important. Maybe not. I'm not an expert in the area of evolution.

You think differently?


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 12:36 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think it would be incredibly exciting.  Something NEW!  That's what we in science are looking for all the time.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:40 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
allisong

|        |       Report Post


Photobucket

Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, I suppose you are right.


-------
Oh God, we need you here
We're sinking fast and we don’t care
The evidence is all around me, on both sides of my door
Our hearts beat
 


Posts: 58 | Posted: 12:44 AM on April 6, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd just like to highlight the fact that the coelacanths found today are different from the coelacanths found in the fossil record.  Clearly, the coelacanth evolved.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:13 PM on April 6, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from allisong at 12:24 AM on April 6, 2008 :
I don't think it would disprove it really. I would just think that it might cause some alarm... I guess if something of more importance were found to be alive, like a dinosaur or some human-like form, it might matter more, because it would cause the evolutionary tree to be thrown off balance.


Why? All it would prove is that a species was capable of adapting to the environment, or had existing features which allowed it to survive. Roaches for example.

 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 6:48 PM on April 7, 2008 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.