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
     Coelacanth

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Due to the fact that certain evolutionist say the living coelacanth is not represented in the fossil records I present this article form USC Berrley, not exactly a hotbed of Creationist thought.
It most certainly is an shows an amazing statis , not evolution. There are some coelacanth that seem to be extinct but that does not prove , or even suggest they walked out on to a Devonian beach.
Of course they may still be alive deep in the ocean.

"The fascination scientists and the general public have with coelacanths is likely caused by their unusual appearance, their evolutionary importance, and the fact that they have remained virtually unchanged morphologically for millions of years, leading some to refer to them as "living fossils". "

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 01:11 AM on May 30, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

the fact that they have remained virtually unchanged morphologically for millions of years, leading some to refer to them as "living fossils". "

Notice the word "virtually"

From here:
Coelacanth

"The Coelacanths are a good example of a species that has evolved and adapted, while retaining imperative characteristics of their ancestors. It was their ability to adapt to their surroundings that kept them from becoming an extinct species a long time ago."

So while modern coelacanths are incredibly similar to the fossilized versions we have found, they are not exactly the same, it's obvious they have evolved.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:27 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 1:27 PM on May 30, 2005 :
the fact that they have remained virtually unchanged morphologically for millions of years, leading some to refer to them as "living fossils". "

Notice the word "virtually"


From here:
Coelacanth

"The Coelacanths are a good example of a species that has evolved and adapted, while retaining imperative characteristics of their ancestors. It was their ability to adapt to their surroundings that kept them from becoming an extinct species a long time ago."

So while modern coelacanths are incredibly similar to the fossilized versions we have found, they are not exactly the same, it's obvious they have evolved.  


Before you said they were not represented in the fossil recoed at all. Virtual means almost exactly. No 2 organisms are exactly the same. Even a mother and child are somewhat different. If you have blue eyes and your mothers are green you are still considered a human.
This is a case of an animal evolutionists used as proof of trans-mutation of fossils and an index fossil, used to date rock.
They were 100% wrong . It is the same creature , it is evidence of statis , of Creation.
You can say anything but it is the same creature according to science.
It is only one of many examples of statis that you claim are non-existant. Statis is the norm, not the exception. The observable evidence supports creation more often than not.
To say it is not the same creature is dishonest.
Facts are facts. This is a fact .



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 5:19 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Before you said they were not represented in the fossil recoed at all.

Show me where I said they were not represented in the fossil record???  That is a blantant lie!  A different genus of coelacanth is in the fossil record then the modern coelacanth.

Virtual means almost exactly. No 2 organisms are exactly the same

Duh...almost.

No 2 organisms are exactly the same. Even a mother and child are somewhat different.

As explained by the theory of evolution.

This is a case of an animal evolutionists used as proof of trans-mutation of fossils and an index fossil, used to date rock. They were 100% wrong . It is the same creature , it is evidence of statis, of Creation.

Wrong!  This is an example of an animal that was thought to be extinct, but a close relative of it was still alive, living in a different, highly inaccessable environment.  This does nothing to falsify the theory of evolution.  And guess what, it's still evidence for fish to amphibian evolution.

You can say anything but it is the same creature according to science.

No you're the one talking out of your ass with nothing to back it up.  As usual, you do no research and depend on deplorable creationist sources for your information, no wonder you are always wrong!  From here:
Coelacanth
"As for coelocanths remaining the same throughout geological time, not exactly. Living coelacanths found in Madagascar are neither the same type of coelacanth fossils that have been found in rocks that are 360 million years old, nor are they exactly the same type of coelacanth found in strata about 80 million years old; though the living species does resemble the younger fossil species more closely than it does the oldest known coelocanth fossil species. Hence differences are tracible through time as evolution would expect. The older coelacanth species, the ones that are known from before 80 million years ago, were far more diverse (more than 120 different known fossil species) smaller, lacked certain internal structures found in modern coelacanths and belonged to a different genera and suborder. Modern coelacanths also belong to a different genera than the 80 million year genera. See the book, Coelacanth. W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London, 1991, page "

So there are the facts, what do you have to say now?

It is only one of many examples of statis that you claim are non-existant.

I never claimed stasis was wrong, where did you get that?!  Evolution doesn't deny stasis can happen, in an environment that changes little over time, the organisms that live there can also change little.  This does othing to falsify the theory of evolution!

To say it is not the same creature is dishonest.
Facts are facts. This is a fact .


The fact is, it's not the same. the fact is you're wrong, and if you had any integrity. you'd admit it!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:14 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 6:14 PM on May 30, 2005 :

Show me where I said they were not represented in the fossil record???  That is a blantant lie!  A different genus of coelacanth is in the fossil record then the modern coelacanth.

You said the modern ones had evolved . This was to counter my assertion that statis is the norm. You said they were not the same , that they had changed! That the "modern" coleocanth was different.  I said  what difference does it make if some similar creatures had gone extinct.
This is the reason I have been ignoring you post. You are clinicllly insane. You deny saying things like that there was a start to the origin of reality even after I reposted your own statements many times. There your little buddies defend you but agree that there is no such thing as the start of thr origin of reality .
Insanity must be contagious! Is this what they taught you in school? Try to wear down your opponnent by calling them a liar and denying what you said and being as hateful and mean spirited as you can?.

No 2 organisms are exactly the same. Even a mother and child are somewhat different.

As explained by the theory of evolution.
That's almost as brilliant as your origin of the start or reality theory. Have you had a stroke?
Without the theory of evolution we would not know why a child is not exactly like it's mother? Do your  buddies agree with this one?

This was your argument to the article I posted. That virtual meant not the same. Whatever differences there are between the fossil ancestors of the prsent day coleocanth is no more than the difference between an Asian and a Caucaisian for instance. Or the difference between one living coleocanth and another for instance.
Your contention that finding living coleocanth proves evolution is like finding a kid with cookie crumbs in his bed and saying his dog did it.
It is juvenile. This was an important index fossil and it shows the fallacy of the geologic collumn being a dating tool. The coleocanth was the basis for the lobe finned fishes take a hike nonsense . It was said that it had lungs and the beginnings of arms and legs.
This has been proven to be just another brainless charter in the Long Ago and Far Far Away Theory .


Wrong!  This is an example of an animal that was thought to be extinct, but a close relative of it was still alive, living in a different, highly inaccessable environment.  This does nothing to falsify the theory of evolution.  And guess what, it's still evidence for fish to amphibian evolution.

Please don't contradict yourself on the same post. That is bad form even for an evolutionist.
It was the same animal! You don't deny the article know do you?
Are the scientist as  Berkley Lying Creationist?
Guess what it had no lungs it had no feet and it is not extinct!

No longer existing or living: an extinct species.
No longer burning or active: an extinct volcano.
No longer in use: an extinct custom. See Synonyms at dead.
Law. Lacking a claimant; void: an extinct title.

Possessing life: famous living painters; transplanted living tissue.
In active function or use: a living language.
Of persons who are alive: events within living memory.
Relating to the routine conduct or maintainance of life: improved living conditions in the city.
Full of life, interest, or vitality: made history a living subject.
True to life; realistic: the living image of her mother.
Informal. Used as an intensive: beat the living hell out of his opponent in the boxing match.

n.
Is this confusing you ?




No you're the one talking out of your ass with nothing to back it up.  As usual, you do no research and depend on deplorable creationist sources for your information, no wonder you are always wrong!  From here:
Coelacanth
"As for coelocanths remaining the same throughout geological time, not exactly. Living coelacanths found in Madagascar are neither the same type of coelacanth fossils that have been found in rocks that are 360 million years old, nor are they exactly the same type of coelacanth found in strata about 80 million years old; though the living species does resemble the younger fossil species more closely than it does the oldest known coelocanth fossil species. Hence differences are tracible through time as evolution would expect. The older coelacanth species, the ones that are known from before 80 million years ago, were far more diverse (more than 120 different known fossil species) smaller, lacked certain internal structures found in modern coelacanths and belonged to a different genera and suborder. Modern coelacanths also belong to a different genera than the 80 million year genera. See the book, Coelacanth. W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London, 1991, page "

So there are the facts, what do you have to say now?
Give me a minute I lost my glasses when I fell off my chair laughing.

You said:
"As usual, you do no research and depend on deplorable creationist sources for your information"

All this information I posted was from this site:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO BELIEVES THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKLEY HAS A DEPLORABLE CREATIONIST WEBSITE ?


I never claimed stasis was wrong, where did you get that?!  Evolution doesn't deny stasis can happen, in an environment that changes little over time, the organisms that live there can also change little.  This does othing to falsify the theory of evolution!


So if you now have made a 180 degree turn and agree that statis is the norm and not the exception , which is true , then why is evolution the prevailing theory? Why is the theory that defies the observable evidence preferred over the one that agrees with it?
Maybe this is why?


"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasture and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God." He then went on to say that "I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." Dr. George Wall professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University. Nobel Prize winner in biology. From an article in Scientific America)



The fact is, it's not the same. the fact is you're wrong, and if you had any integrity. you'd admit it!

This is the second time on this post you contradicted yourself.

"Show me where I said they were not represented in the fossil record???  That is a blantant lie! "

"The fact is, it's not the same. the fact is you're wrong, and if you had any integrity. you'd admit it!"

You are special Demon .

(Edited by peddler8111 6/3/2005 at 11:09 AM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 09:25 AM on June 3, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are clinicllly insane. You deny saying things like that there was a start to the origin of reality even after I reposted your own statements many times.

You are the one who is a moron!  Let's look at that ONE MORE TIME!
You said:
"Answer the question . You said reality did not exist before the big bang."

I never mentioned the Big Bang in my answer, you shoe horned that in there, and you still won't admit you were wrong!  You then quote me directly!
"Quote from Demon38 at 6:53 PM on May 28, 2005 :
There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak."
Where in that sentence you quoted directly from me, do I even mention the Big Bang?!?!
Let's look at every word, since this is what it takes for you to read and comprehend....
"There" "are" "many" "hypothesis" "on" "the"
"origin" "of" "the" "start" "of" "reality" ","
"cosmologosts" "and" "theoretical" "physicists"
"are" "working' "on" "this" "even" "as" "we"
"speak" "."  
Where in that string of words that I first posted and you REPOSTED did I mention the Big Bang?  It's not even in the sentence!
I'm waiting for an apology because you were wrong again!

Without the theory of evolution we would not know why a child is not exactly like it's mother? Do your  buddies agree with this one?


Of course they do, guess you don't know what the Modern Synthesis is.  And explain to us scientifically, exactly why a child is not exactly like it's mother without using the theory of evolution.  And none of that meaningless crap like "genetic variation" that you like to toss around that explains nothing.

This was your argument to the article I posted. That virtual meant not the same. Whatever differences there are between the fossil ancestors of the prsent day coleocanth is no more than the difference between an Asian and a Caucaisian for instance. Or the difference between one living coleocanth and another for instance.

Don't be absurd!  Don't youi understand Linnean classification?!?!?  A genus is a classification above a species and below a family.  An Asian and a Caucasian are both from the same species (Homo Sapiens), Living and fossilized coelacanths are different, so different they are not even the same genus!  

Your contention that finding living coleocanth proves evolution is like finding a kid with cookie crumbs in his bed and saying his dog did it.

Why?  The coelacanths in the fossil record are different from modern coelacanths, how did they change?  Evolution is the best answer, the only scientifically support answer.

It is juvenile. This was an important index fossil and it shows the fallacy of the geologic collumn being a dating tool.

Don't see how it's juvenile, you never bother to explain why you say such moronic things!  And just how does it show the fallacy of the geologic column being a dating tool?!?!  What REAL evidence do you have for saying the oldest coelacanths are not 360 millionyears old?!?!  Put up or shut up, because nobody is buying your worthless, unsupported claims!

The coleocanth was the basis for the lobe finned fishes take a hike nonsense

Why?  Because you say so?!?!  You haven't been right yet!  I'm certainly not going to take the unsupported word of an idiot!

It was said that it had lungs and the beginnings of arms and legs.

It was a lobe finned fish, who ever said it had lungs???  I guess your making things up again!

This has been proven to be just another brainless charter in the Long Ago and Far Far Away Theory .

You haven't proven anything, you haven't been able to support ANY of your points with any evidence, all you got is "that's absurd", nothing else!

Please don't contradict yourself on the same post. That is bad form even for an evolutionist.
It was the same animal! You don't deny the article know do you?
Are the scientist as  Berkley Lying Creationist?
Guess what it had no lungs it had no feet and it is not extinct!


Boy, don't understand biology, don't understand physics, don't understand science and can't read on top of it!  I'm going to have to ignore your senseless ramblings and just focus on the main points here.
The coelacanths living today are different genus from the coelacanths that lived 80 million years ago, and both the modern coelacanths and the ones from m80 million years ago are different from the ones that lived 360 million years ago.  What the hell are you taling about, it's afact the fossil coelacanths were different from modern coelacanths.  We have never found a fossil of
L. chaumnae, the modern coelacanth.  So I stand by the evidence, coelacanths are excellent examples of evolution.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO BELIEVES THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKLEY HAS A DEPLORABLE CREATIONIST WEBSITE ?

I haven't seen any information that says Berkeley supports you ignorant position?!?!  Where is it?!?!?!

So if you now have made a 180 degree turn and agree that statis is the norm and not the exception , which is true , then why is evolution the prevailing theory?

I've made no turn 180% or otherwise, organisms can remain relatively unchanged if the environment they are in stays relatively unchanged.  But let's get back to the point, the one you could never refute:

This is the second time on this post you contradicted yourself.

Of course, you dodge the question, can't refute it, claim Berkeley supports you, claim I contradicted my self, and never once back up any of these claims!  So let's just list the points made in this thread.

Fossilized coelacanths are different from modern ones.  They different enough to be in different genuses.
The coelacanth didn't remain completely unchanged, it evolved.
There are no L. chaumnae in the fossil record.

As to Berkeley, they know what they're talking about, it's you who don't have a clue.
From here:
Berkeley

"BERKELEY-- University of California, Berkeley, scientists who last year discovered a new population of coelacanths in Indonesia now report that it is a totally separate species that split from the only other known population of the ancient fish some four to six million years ago."

Yeah, they're real dyed in the wool creationists in that school!


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:22 AM on June 4, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 03:22 AM on June 4, 2005 :

You are the one who is a moron!  Let's look at that ONE MORE TIME!
You said:
"Answer the question . You said reality did not exist before the big bang."

I never mentioned the Big Bang in my answer, you shoe horned that in there, and you still won't admit you were wrong!  You then quote me directly!
"Quote from Demon38 at 6:53 PM on May 28, 2005 :
There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak."
Where in that sentence you quoted directly from me, do I even mention the Big Bang?!?!
Let's look at every word, since this is what it takes for you to read and comprehend....
"There" "are" "many" "hypothesis" "on" "the"
"origin" "of" "the" "start" "of" "reality" ","
"cosmologosts" "and" "theoretical" "physicists"
"are" "working' "on" "this" "even" "as" "we"
"speak" "."  
Where in that string of words that I first posted and you REPOSTED did I mention the Big Bang?  It's not even in the sentence!
I'm waiting for an apology because you were wrong again!

I am so sorry. I can't even imagine why one would assume that there would be a relationship between a COSMOLOGIST  working on  Origins and the Big Bang . How could I be so silly?
Or did you mean to say Cosmetologist ? It's easy to confuse big words like that.


Of course they do, guess you don't know what the Modern Synthesis is.  And explain to us scientifically, exactly why a child is not exactly like it's mother without using the theory of evolution.  And none of that meaningless crap like "genetic variation" that you like to toss around that explains nothing.

That's a trick question to make a scientific explanation using a fairy tale as the basis.

Of course I am not a professional biologist like you but I suspect one reason children don't look exactly like the mother is they look somewhat like their father.
Your thoughts?


[Don't be absurd!  Don't youi understand Linnean classification?!?!?  A genus is a classification above a species and below a family.  An Asian and a Caucasian are both from the same species (Homo Sapiens), Living and fossilized coelacanths are different, so different they are not even the same genus!  
And yet they are virtually the same. Facinating. I would like you to point this out using my reference.


Why?  The coelacanths in the fossil record are different from modern coelacanths, how did they change?  Evolution is the best answer, the only scientifically support answer.

Facinating. millions of years of evolution and they are almost identical, that proves evolution. Why can't I see that. The fact it was a fact they had lungs and arms and feet was wrong proves evolution.
The theory of evolution proves evolution! It's so simple an insane person can see it!


Don't see how it's juvenile, you never bother to explain why you say such moronic things!  And just how does it show the fallacy of the geologic column being a dating tool?!?!  What REAL evidence do you have for saying the oldest coelacanths are not 360 millionyears old?!?!  Put up or shut up, because nobody is buying your worthless, unsupported claims!

Let's see . The coleocanth was used to date rocks because it was supposed to have gone extinct. It is still alive.

[Why?  Because you say so?!?!  You haven't been right yet!  I'm certainly not going to take the unsupported word of an idiot!

Then why do you make up stories like the origin of the start of reality? If you are not going to take the unsupported word of an idiot you see in the mirror everyday why should you expect me to?

Well professor by claiming the coleocanth was 370 ma old you identified it as an index fossil. That is what an index fossil is. One you "know" the age of.
Why do you take the unsupported claims of an idiot on the start of the origin of reality and not on index fossils?

It was said that it had lungs and the beginnings of arms and legs.

It was a lobe finned fish, who ever said it had lungs???  I guess your making things up again!

Just stating facts. Of course you never bothered to read the history of your religion.

You haven't proven anything, you haven't been able to support ANY of your points with any evidence, all you got is "that's absurd", nothing else!

Boy, don't understand biology, don't understand physics, don't understand science and can't read on top of it!  I'm going to have to ignore your senseless ramblings and just focus on the main points here.

Just like you "ignored" Cartains post?
Sounds like a losers limp to me.

Long ago and far far away.


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 09:18 AM on June 4, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am so sorry. I can't even imagine why one would assume that there would be a relationship between a COSMOLOGIST  working on  Origins and the Big Bang . How could I be so silly?  Or did you mean to say Cosmetologist ? It's easy to confuse big words like that.

So where did I mention the Big Bang?!?  You were wrong here again, and you don't even have the intergrity to admit it!  You like to dance around your ignorance and mistakes, and that's all you've been doing, nothing to support your wildly inaccurate statements, just misdirection.

That's a trick question to make a scientific explanation using a fairy tale as the basis.


NO trick question, and you still can't answer it!

Of course I am not a professional biologist like you but I suspect one reason children don't look exactly like the mother is they look somewhat like their father.
Your thoughts?


You're avoiding the question, what are the mechanisms that control inheritence?  And how DON'T they support evolution?

And yet they are virtually the same. Facinating. I would like you to point this out using my reference.



Oh yeah, the picture is from:
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/february/coela.htm
Top one is Latimeria Chalumnae,
the bottom one is Macropoma lewesiensis.  They sure look similar but not "virtually" the same to me.  Also note that fossilized coelacanths ae substanially smaller than modern coelacaths.

Facinating. millions of years of evolution and they are almost identical, that proves evolution. Why can't I see that. The fact it was a fact they had lungs and arms and feet was wrong proves evolution.

You can't see it because you are a religious zealot who ignores evidence unless it's filtered through your superstitious myths.  And I'm still waiting for you to tell us what biologists in the last 50 years has claimed coelacanth had lungs????  And who claims they had legs and arms and feet????  See, you make up your own stuff and then rant against it.  Do us all a favor and learn a little about science before you try to debate...

Let's see . The coleocanth was used to date rocks because it was supposed to have gone extinct. It is still alive.

The species that went extinct is different from modern coelacanths.    So yes, the coelacanths they use as index fossils are different from modern coelacanths.  And  index fossils are really just a quick and dirty method of getting a rough date.  So what's the problem here, you haven't explained it...

Then why do you make up stories like the origin of the start of reality?

I didn't make up any stories, the only one using fairytales to describe reality is you, with your 4000 year out of date myths you think are real.  I made up nothing.

If you are not going to take the unsupported word of an idiot you see in the mirror everyday why should you expect me to?


The information I've posted is readily available, all you have to do is study it,  falsify it, produce a better explaination for it, submit that to peer review and publish the results!  If you do that, and convince me you're right, I'll be the first to apologize to you!  But so far, you haven't even bothered to research the subjects you pontificate on.  You don't understand anything about evolution, you don't understand anything about astronomy (you actually thought the Big Bang was an explosion!) and your ignorance shows, you haven't backed up a single point yet.

Well professor by claiming the coleocanth was 370 ma old you identified it as an index fossil. That is what an index fossil is. One you "know" the age of.

Yes it is an index fossil, so what.  It is distinctly different from other coelcanths, including the 2 modern species.

Why do you take the unsupported claims of an idiot on the start of the origin of reality and not on index fossils?

I don't, I said there are theories that the universe self started and theories that our universe exists in a greater, eternal reality and that each of these theories is better than your "Goddidit" fairytale.  You refuse to defend your position and explain why your story is better than theories that actually have some evidence...

Just stating facts. Of course you never bothered to read the history of your religion.


But here's another one of your many problems, in science only the most recent findings are valid.  What modern biologists say coelacanth has lungs, feet or arms?  If you can't name any, your point is moot.  You try to cloud the discussion with irrelevant issues.

Just like you "ignored" Cartains post?
Sounds like a losers limp to me.


I ignored your incorrect assumptions about evolution, I mean, how can you debate against someone who doesn't understand what the subject they're debating about!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:51 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 11:51 PM on June 4, 2005 :

So where did I mention the Big Bang?!?  You were wrong here again, and you don't even have the intergrity to admit it!  You like to dance around your ignorance and mistakes, and that's all you've been doing, nothing to support your wildly inaccurate statements, just misdirection.

When it comes to you questioning my integrity it would beg the question:
How would you know?
Ok wise one please explain why a cosmologist working on origins not be working on the big bang?
Also please explain what the start of the origin of anything is. It would imply the end of an origin.
Again I assert that you made this up and are not big enough to admit.
If you cannot back up your claim with some evidence that cosmologist and veteranarians or whoever is working on the Start of the Origin of Reality you are admitting you tell stories.
Let's see it professor ? What University is working on this ?


You're avoiding the question, what are the mechanisms that control inheritence?  And how DON'T they support evolution?

The genetic inheritence of an organism is determined by the information written into the DNA molecule.



Oh yeah, the picture is from:
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2002/february/coela.htm
Top one is Latimeria Chalumnae,
the bottom one is Macropoma lewesiensis.  They sure look similar but not "virtually" the same to me.  Also note that fossilized coelacanths ae substanially smaller than modern coelacaths.

I said "my" reference , try again.


You can't see it because you are a religious zealot who ignores evidence unless it's filtered through your superstitious myths.  And I'm still waiting for you to tell us what biologists in the last 50 years has claimed coelacanth had lungs????  And who claims they had legs and arms and feet????  See, you make up your own stuff and then rant against it.  Do us all a favor and learn a little about science before you try to debate...

Of course there are no biologist in the last 50 years the claim the coleocanth has lungs or arms and feet. They have living specimens professor.
That claim was disproved in 1939 when they found the first one.
Evolutionary evidence is only usefull when is impossible to test.
Now the story is the lung fish was the link. When confronted with facts evolutionist do what they do best. Make up stories.
You just have no talent for the craft. The start of the origin of relity? ROFL
Long ago and far far away.



The species that went extinct is different from modern coelacanths.    So yes, the coelacanths they use as index fossils are different from modern coelacanths.  And  index fossils are really just a quick and dirty method of getting a rough date.  So what's the problem here, you haven't explained it...

Fossils are the basis on which all radiometric dating is based. The way you check to see if a sample is "contaminated" and is giving an incorrect date is to compare it with the fossil evolutionary" date.

t make up any stories, the only one using fairytales to describe reality is you, with your 4000 year out of date myths you think are real.  I made up nothing.

I really have no choice other than to say you are a very poor liar. Give me proof there are scientist working on the ORIGIN OF THE START OF REALITY .If it is true that should be easy.


The information I've posted is readily available, all you have to do is study it,  falsify it, produce a better explaination for it, submit that to peer review and publish the results!  If you do that, and convince me you're right, I'll be the first to apologize to you!  But so far, you haven't even bothered to research the subjects you pontificate on.  You don't understand anything about evolution, you don't understand anything about astronomy (you actually thought the Big Bang was an explosion!) and your ignorance shows, you haven't backed up a single point yet.

I can find no reference to the study of the Start of the Origin of Reality.
Please provide one professor.

Well professor by claiming the coleocanth was 370 ma old you identified it as an index fossil. That is what an index fossil is. One you "know" the age of.

Yes it is an index fossil, so what.  It is distinctly different from other coelcanths, including the 2 modern species.

Demon I have never discussed anything with anybody who would tell such insane fairy tales as you knowing that the proof they are just that available for all to see.
If I was an evolutionist I would tell you to shut up and go away. If your ethics and intelligence are an example of the norm them Darwinism is truly dead and gone.

You said:

Posts: 293 | Posted: 1:27 PM on May 30, 2005 | IP

"So while modern coelacanths are incredibly similar to the fossilized versions we have found, they are not exactly the same, it's obvious they have evolved.  "

You just now said:

"Yes it is an index fossil, so what.  [/b]It is distinctly different[/b] from other coelcanths, including the 2 modern species"
incredibly similar and [/b] distinctly different[/b] are polar opposites.
You must be delusional or have the mind of a child to make such claims.
Perhaps I am being unkind to someone who is doing the best they can.
If so I apologize .

I don't, I said there are theories that the universe self started and theories that our universe exists in a greater, eternal reality and that each of these theories is better than your "Goddidit" fairytale.  You refuse to defend your position and explain why your story is better than theories that actually have some evidence...

Again you said that cosmologist and others are working on the start of the origin of reality.
You are delusional or perhaps a down syndrome child.
Origins are a start !
Your stories are made up to explain the evidence not the other way around!

Explain how DNA and proteins "evolved" seperatly and I will convert !

Just stating facts. Of course you never bothered to read the history of your religion.


But here's another one of your many problems, in science only the most recent findings are valid.  What modern biologists say coelacanth has lungs, feet or arms?  If you can't name any, your point is moot.  You try to cloud the discussion with irrelevant issues.

Just like you "ignored" Cartains post?
Sounds like a losers limp to me.


I ignored your incorrect assumptions about evolution, I mean, how can you debate against someone who doesn't understand what the subject they're debating about!






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:49 AM on June 5, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok wise one please explain why a cosmologist working on origins not be working on the big bang?

Because they think the Big Bang happened in one part of eleven dimensional space that existed before the Big Bang?  Hey, you lied  and you got caught.  And you still refuse to answer the question, why is your goddidit explaination better than a self starting universe or an eternal universe?  

If you cannot back up your claim with some evidence that cosmologist and veteranarians or whoever is working on the Start of the Origin of Reality you are admitting you tell stories.
Let's see it professor ? What University is working on this ?


This coming from the guy who hasn't backed up ANYTHING he's said...
From here:
McGill
"The inflationary universe scenario does not eliminate cosmological singularities, nor does it address the question of why only three of the nine or ten spatial dimensions of string or M theory are macroscopic. Research at McGill focuses on `string gas cosmology', an approach to string cosmology which addresses these questions. Studies of cyclic cosmologies in the context of string cosmology are also in progress. "

From here:
Experiments
"Dr Michio Kaku: The direct proof of superstring theory may lie far in the future, However, indirect measurements may come fairly soon. Most science, in fact, is done with indirect experiments. For example, we have never visited the Sun but we know that is made out of Hydrogen because we have echoes from the Sun called sunlight. Similarly, we hope to find echoes from the tenth dimension. For example, in Geneva Switzerland, a large Hadron Collider will be turned on and we hope to find particles or super-particles which would be the next lowest vibration of the superstring. Furthermore, dark matter which makes up 90% of the Universe maybe made up of super-particles . "

I still don't know what you're trying to say but experiments are being conducted into the origin of reality.  

The genetic inheritence of an organism is determined by the information written into the DNA molecule.

Yes, and we know that this information can change, which supports evolution.

I said "my" reference , try again.

Your reference?!?!  What does it matter where the reference comes from?  The coelacanths are different, that's the facts.  Your reference, from Berkeley, didn't say they were identical,
it said they were "virtually" unchanged, especially compared to other examples of fish evolution.  The facts are plain, the coelacanths changed over millions of years, the only one who disagrees with this is you and you have nothing to back your claim up with.

Now the story is the lung fish was the link. When confronted with facts evolutionist do what they do best. Make up stories.

Show me any biologists who claimed the coelacanth had lungs or feet or arms!  You're just making things up now!

Fossils are the basis on which all radiometric dating is based.

Ridiculous!  How come we date samples that existed BEFORE any fossils?  That kind of destroys your arguement right there!

The way you check to see if a sample is "contaminated" and is giving an incorrect date is to compare it with the fossil evolutionary" date.

Untrue!

Yes it is an index fossil, so what.  It is distinctly different[/b] from other coelcanths, including the 2 modern species"
incredibly similar and [/b] distinctly different[/b] are polar opposites.
You must be delusional or have the mind of a child to make such claims.
Perhaps I am being unkind to someone who is doing the best they can.
If so I apologize .[/b]

Are modern coelacanths similar to ancient ones?  Yes.  Are they different enough so that ancient coelacanths can be used for index fossils, yes.  Are modern coelacanths represented in the fossil record?  NO!  
You've tried to confuse the issue, but these are the main points, points you have been unable to refute!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:21 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 4:21 PM on June 7, 2005 :
Ok wise one please explain why a cosmologist working on origins not be working on the big bang?

Because they think the Big Bang happened in one part of eleven dimensional space that existed before the Big Bang?  Hey, you lied  and you got caught.  And you still refuse to answer the question, why is your goddidit explaination better than a self starting universe or an eternal universe?  


If all you can do is call me a liar I see no reason to continue talking to a spoiled stupid child like yourself.


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 4:51 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If all you can do is call me a liar I see no reason to continue talking to a spoiled stupid child like yourself.

But you lied!  Here is your quote:
"Answer the question . You said reality did not exist before the big bang."

And here is what I said:
""Quote from Demon38 at 6:53 PM on May 28, 2005 :
There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak.""

No mention of the Big Bang, as you erroneously stated.

Now, I guess you consider this a convenient way to avoid answering the hard questions.
Oh well, it was fun while it lasted, but you obviously can't keep up with real science.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:17 PM on June 7, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 9:17 PM on June 7, 2005 :
Ditto but I will try again anyway

But you lied!  Here is your quote:
"Answer the question . You said reality did not exist before the big bang."

And here is what I said:
""Quote from Demon38 at 6:53 PM on May 28, 2005 :
There are many hypothesises on the origin of the start of reality, cosmologists and theoretical physicists are working on this even as we speak.""

No mention of the Big Bang, as you erroneously stated.

Now, I guess you consider this a convenient way to avoid answering the hard questions.
Oh well, it was fun while it lasted, but you obviously can't keep up with real science.



I told you I was terribly sorry to make the assumption that the start of the origin of reality had anything to do with a cosmetoligist, or cosmologist even remotely contemplating the big dud.
Of course anything that anyone says that you don't agree with is a liar.
Of course you will be sure to call Apoapsis a liar as you are centainly fair minded and not the bigot I take you for. He assumed the same thing and certainly deserve your rath and both of us should probably be executed for going against your infinite wisdom.

I understand science okay it is [b]Demonology :} [/b}that gives me headaches.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 07:26 AM on June 9, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I told you I was terribly sorry to make the assumption that the start of the origin of reality had anything to do with a cosmetoligist, or cosmologist even remotely contemplating the big dud.

Finally!  You admit you were wrong!  I couldn't care less about your assumptions because they've ALL been wrong so far, but admitting you're wrong is a start!

Of course anything that anyone says that you don't agree with is a liar.

No, just those incorrect statements that you can't back up.  When your not telling the truth, I call you on it.

Of course you will be sure to call Apoapsis a liar as you are centainly fair minded and not the bigot I take you for.

Apoapsis always backs up his statements, unlike you.  And I really don't give a damn what you think of me...

He assumed the same thing and certainly deserve your rath and both of us should probably be executed for going against your infinite wisdom.

Where did he actually quote me and then claim I said something else?!?!  Put up or shut up!

I understand science okay it is [b]Demonology :} [/b}that gives me headaches.


No, it's clear you don't, you're still claiming science means to know!
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:35 AM on June 11, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 03:35 AM on June 11, 2005 :

Peddler
I told you I was terribly sorry to make the assumption that the start of the origin of reality had anything to do with a cosmetoligist, or cosmologist even remotely contemplating the big dud.

Finally!  You admit you were wrong!  I couldn't care less about your assumptions because they've ALL been wrong so far, but admitting you're wrong is a start!
Yes I do believe that cosmetologist are working hair and nail to find the answer to the origin of starts.

Apoapsis always backs up his statements, unlike you.  And I really don't give a damn what you think of me...
That is strange. He said you are wrong about the same thing I said you were wrong about and he has backed up his claim , as always and I have lied , as always.
It all makes sense now! :}



Where did he actually quote me and then claim I said something else?!?!  Put up or shut up!
Your funny. I always put up and you just keep saying I don't. Brilliant technique.
Box of Fox disagres with you.
"So if unreality doesn't exist because we are always in reality, why in the world did you as if there was an origin to it?"
Anopsis said:
"Modern particle accelerators reproduce energy densities that approach conditions very soon after the "big bang".  "
Also:
"Cosmologists are working on the start of the universe, our present reality.  If you want names look at the follwing articles.  You are pretty quick with the lying label"
You see Demon he does not believe there wasa start to the origin of reality. Only a start to the universe , our reality. In his words the big bang. For once and for all an origin is a start!



No, it's clear you don't, you're still claiming science means to know!
[b]
It does Demon. You are claiming you are right and Webster is wrong. How can I back up my claims if you say that whatever you claim a word to mean overrules the dictionary?
Save this link!
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science

sci·ence    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.


---
[Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scins, scient- present participle of scre, to know. See skei- in Indo-European Roots.]

Read carefully. From scientia -to know!
As a matter of fact in old English it was used as we use the word knowledge. For example:
The King James Bible

1Ti 6:20  O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Many Christians take this as a warning about dialetical materialism, which it is, but it means knowledge so called in todays English.

These are simple verifiable facts. Just because you choose to set your own rules of behaviour and make up your own definititions of words does not make you the winner. Facts are facts, your opinions are your opinions.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 08:14 AM on June 15, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 08:14 AM on June 15, 2005 :


No, it's clear you don't, you're still claiming science means to know!

It does Demon. You are claiming you are right and Webster is wrong. How can I back up my claims if you say that whatever you claim a word to mean overrules the dictionary?

Are you claiming that the sixth definition of the dictionary overides the first?

Save this link!
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science

sci·ence    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.


---
[Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scins, scient- present participle of scre, to know. See skei- in Indo-European Roots.]

Read carefully. From scientia -to know!
As a matter of fact in old English it was used as we use the word knowledge. For example:
The King James Bible

1Ti 6:20  O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Many Christians take this as a warning about dialetical materialism, which it is, but it means knowledge so called in todays English.


Well, let's see what Answers in Genesis says:

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage.


-------
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: 10:23 AM on June 15, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:23 AM on June 15, 2005 :
Quote from peddler8111 at 08:14 AM on June 15, 2005 :


No, it's clear you don't, you're still claiming science means to know!

It does Demon. You are claiming you are right and Webster is wrong. How can I back up my claims if you say that whatever you claim a word to mean overrules the dictionary?

Are you claiming that the sixth definition of the dictionary overides the first?

Save this link!
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science

sci·ence    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sns)
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.


---
[Middle English, knowledge, learning, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from scins, scient- present participle of scre, to know. See skei- in Indo-European Roots.]

Read carefully. From scientia -to know!
As a matter of fact in old English it was used as we use the word knowledge. For example:
The King James Bible

1Ti 6:20  O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

Many Christians take this as a warning about dialetical materialism, which it is, but it means knowledge so called in todays English.


Well, let's see what Answers in Genesis says:

Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated ‘science’ is gnosis, and in this context refers to the élite esoteric ‘knowledge’ that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word ‘science’ originally meant ‘knowledge’, from the Latin scientia, from scio meaning ‘know’. This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as ‘knowledge’ in this passage.


I am beginng to worry about you. That is just what I said. In the King James version it means in todays English knowledge.
Although Science has been given a broader meaning it still means to know. I did not claim that it meant evolution in the bible. What is wrong with you. I thought you would be a worthy advisary. This is childish.

I said:
"Many Christians take this as a warning about dialetical materialism, which it is, but it means knowledge so called in todays English."

Science does mean to know , not to tell fairy tales.



[/b]



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 3:31 PM on June 15, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Science is a way of studying the natural world, of gathering, testing and explaining data.  
The theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories in science.  

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:08 PM on June 15, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 4:08 PM on June 15, 2005 :
Science is a way of studying the natural world, of gathering, testing and explaining data.  
The theory of evolution is one of the strongest theories in science.  


[b] And how do we know this is true? Simple , the theory of evolution explains the theory of evolution. It's so simple even Demon understands it. Why does Demon understand it? Because Demon is so simple. [b]




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:54 PM on June 16, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b] And how do we know this is true? Simple , the theory of evolution explains the theory of evolution. It's so simple even Demon understands it. Why does Demon understand it? Because Demon is so simple. [b]

Still can't refute the points can you...Evolution is one of the strongest theories in science because it is so well supported by the evidence.  You try to construct these logical arguments but they don't work.   The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the evidence, and by evidence I mean the fossil record, genetics, ERV's, twin nested hierarchies, embriology, biogeography.  Creationism was falsified over 200 years ago.  You're the only one here that uses circular arguments.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:31 AM on June 18, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
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.