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
     A few questions

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

    
JSF16

|       |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, I have a few questions for the evolutionists.

1. The big bang, according to the big bang, the universe was a unbelievably small, and unbelievably dence. Yet, the law of the small, (Quantum mechanics) and the law of the big, (Gravity) Do not work together.

2. Natural selection, according to naturalk selection, the better, superior animals survive and the lesse die off. The Sheep defies this.

Sheep vs wolf

The sheep produces only 1 offspring a year, the the wolf 4-5. The ratio is 5:1 for the superior creature.

Humans weren't around to protect Sheep, wolves would easily destroy them.

3. I have seen numerous skulls, and skeletons of the 'transitional' evidence, and I have noticed something: They are only partially there: Let me explain.

The Skulls: They often only find small pieces of a single skull, and presume what the rest looks like. Now, I am no scientist, but I think that assuming 70% of something that is not there, is not very scientific.

The Skeletons: Like the skulls, only a small amount is usually found and the rest is made up. Sometimes, a skull is found and the entire body is designed off of that. Again, I do not find that is good evidence.

So, If you could answer these, that would be nice.


-------
Everyone says expect the unexpected, but since now everyone expects the unexpected, the unexpected is now the expected and the expected is the unexpected. So if you are expecting the unexpected, you are actually expecting the expected, so if you start expecting the expected, you will be expecting the unexpected. So everyone should start expecting the expected again and the expected will be expected and the unexpected will be unexpected again, then we can start expecting the unexpected again.
 


Posts: 103 | Posted: 7:16 PM on April 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 7:16 PM on April 11, 2009 :
Okay, I have a few questions for the evolutionists.

1. The big bang, according to the big bang, the universe was a unbelievably small, and unbelievably dence. Yet, the law of the small, (Quantum mechanics) and the law of the big, (Gravity) Do not work together.


Quote from Apoapsis at 11:32 PM on April 7, 2009 :
Quote from gluteus_maximus at 9:34 PM on April 7, 2009 :
Do you evolutionists see any shortcomings with your theory, have any doubts at all or are you 100% sure through and through?


In science, nothing is 100% certain.  Am I confident that further clarifications of evolutionary theory will be made as new discoveries are made? Yes.  Do I think there will be huge changes to it? No.  

That's not true of gravity, I think the theory of gravity could be overturned any day.

If you want to argue about evolution, you should argue against what it really is, rather than the cartoon version that you apparently think it is.






-------
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: 9:49 PM on April 11, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. The big bang, according to the big bang, the universe was a unbelievably small, and unbelievably dence. Yet, the law of the small, (Quantum mechanics) and the law of the big, (Gravity) Do not work together.

Well, first we don't really understand gravity yet.  And second, why do you say they do not work together?

2. Natural selection, according to naturalk selection, the better, superior animals survive and the lesse die off. The Sheep defies this.
Sheep vs wolf
The sheep produces only 1 offspring a year, the the wolf 4-5. The ratio is 5:1 for the superior creature.
Humans weren't around to protect Sheep, wolves would easily destroy them.


Not surprisingly, you are wrong.  From here:
Mouflon

"The mouflon is thought to be one of the two ancestors for all modern domestic sheep breeds.[3][4] It is red-brown with a dark back-stripe, light colored saddle patch and underparts. The males are horned, some females are horned while others lack horns."

Those horns look pretty intimidating.  And from here:
MouflonII

"The mouflon sheep lives on the islands of Sardinia, Corsica and Cyprus. On its native islands it is considered to be endangered. It is a mountain sheep and a grazer. The animal does have a voice and warns other sheep by baaing in different tones. It lives in a grassland biome and feeds on grass. It does not hibernate. The mouflon sheep is the mountain sheep that develops a woolly undercoat in the winter. The sheep does not migrate, but might move around a little to find more food. It usually lives in groups of 20-30. The sheep uses its curved horns to protect itself.

In the summer months males live away from the females and the young. In late fall and early winter the males battle for possession of the females. The dominant males treat the defeated and lower ranking males as females. The gestation lasts about 5-6 months and from 1-3 lambs are produced in the spring. The mouflon sheep has been introduced into the mountains of Hungary,Austria and Czechoslovakia, and it was a successful experiment. The mouflon stands about 27 in. tall at the shoulders. It is a reddish brown color, marked with a dark stripe down its neck and shoulders."

The Mouflon can defend itself, doesn't live in the same enfironment as wolves and has more than one offspring at a time.  Guess that totally debunks your claim.

3. I have seen numerous skulls, and skeletons of the 'transitional' evidence, and I have noticed something: They are only partially there: Let me explain.
The Skulls: They often only find small pieces of a single skull, and presume what the rest looks like. Now, I am no scientist, but I think that assuming 70% of something that is not there, is not very scientific.
The Skeletons: Like the skulls, only a small amount is usually found and the rest is made up. Sometimes, a skull is found and the entire body is designed off of that. Again, I do not find that is good evidence.


First of all when any scrap of fossil is found, it is a scientists job to speculate on what the fossil comes from based on the available evidence.  If it's only a small piece of bone, the scientist must use only that for his hypothesis.  But as more and more fossils are found, they can be compared and contrasted.  So, many times small spieces from a skull or skeleton, that are meaningless to the layman, are instantly identifiable to an expert who has seen hundreds of pieces exactly like it and the overall skeleton they come from.  And we have aquired a vast collection of fossils that HAVE been compared and contrasted.  Many times creationists claim that the fossils illustrating human evolution are actually very small when in reality we have hundreds and hundreds of near complete fossil skeletons to study with more being found every day.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:08 PM on April 11, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 7:16 PM on April 11, 2009 :

2. Natural selection, according to naturalk selection, the better, superior animals survive and the lesse die off. The Sheep defies this.

Sheep vs wolf

The sheep produces only 1 offspring a year, the the wolf 4-5. The ratio is 5:1 for the superior creature.

Humans weren't around to protect Sheep, wolves would easily destroy them.


Demon & Apoapsis - nice replies.  

I would like to point out that in the process of domesticating animals over thousands of years, humans have changed them in ways that make them different from their wild ancestors.  One characteristic that humans bred for was tameness, and probably bred rams that had shorter horns, breeding for traits that made them easier to handle.  Modern sheep, no doubt, would probably have a harder time surviving in the wild than their wild ancestors simply because of the traits that humans have bred them for over thousands of years.  It's an example of natural selection, only humans were doing the selecting.

There's an interesting modern example of this - the silver fox breeding program in the former Soviet Union.  


The Domesticated Silver Fox is the result of nearly 50 years of experiments in the Soviet Union and Russia to domesticate the silver morph of the Red Fox. Notably, the new foxes not only become more tame, but more dog-like as well: they lost their distinctive musky "fox smell", became more friendly with humans, put their ears down (like dogs), wagged their tails when happy and began to vocalize and bark like domesticated dogs. The breeding project was set up by the Soviet scientist Dmitri Belyaev.

From here:
Silver Fox Domestication

Richard Dawkins mentions some of this in his book - 'An Ancestor's Tale' - which I am currently reading.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:53 AM on April 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. The big bang, according to the big bang, the universe was a unbelievably small, and unbelievably dence. Yet, the law of the small, (Quantum mechanics) and the law of the big, (Gravity) Do not work together.
That's not a subject to be discussed in this forum, but well, i guess it's not that serious.

But i really don't know what you mean. You made no question really (in your entire post, in spite of its title). And i don't understand your claim that those two laws (not laws actually) don't work together.

I guess you mean that we can't describe the Big Bang using those two models. And that's right: we can't.

2. Natural selection, according to naturalk selection, the better, superior animals survive and the lesse die off. The Sheep defies this.
You mean the domestic sheep defies natural selection?

Sheep vs wolf
Sheep and wolf together in nature????

The sheep produces only 1 offspring a year, the the wolf 4-5. The ratio is 5:1 for the superior creature.

Humans weren't around to protect Sheep, wolves would easily destroy them.
The domestic sheep, with no humans???

What are you talking about?

If you let them loose they will learn how to survive, or they will die.

If humans domesticate some species, they will almost certainly lose stuff.

Some fruit species lost their seeds, for instance. They can no longer reproduce without humans to assist them.

That doesn't defy the laws of Evolution. The selective pressure changes (from being reproductively successful to being more tasty, generally).

3. I have seen numerous skulls, and skeletons of the 'transitional' evidence, and I have noticed something: They are only partially there: Let me explain.

The Skulls: They often only find small pieces of a single skull, and presume what the rest looks like. Now, I am no scientist, but I think that assuming 70% of something that is not there, is not very scientific.

The Skeletons: Like the skulls, only a small amount is usually found and the rest is made up. Sometimes, a skull is found and the entire body is designed off of that. Again, I do not find that is good evidence.
First, you choose to pay attention to the incomplete ones. There are some pretty complete ones.

Second, it's not like each fossil is a piece of some unique puzzle.

When you do the same puzzle over and over again, hundreds of times, well... You kinda get to know where some piece goes (like Demon points out).


(Edited by wisp 4/12/2009 at 10:24 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:19 AM on April 12, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 08:19 AM on April 12, 2009 :
But i really don't know what you mean. You made no question really (in your entire post, in spite of its title). And i don't understand your claim that those two laws (not laws actually) don't work together.


What he is saying (correctly) is that there is no adequate quantum description of gravity.  There are a number of descriptions, but they suffer from over generalization, there is no current way to successfully determine which of them is correct.

Experiments are beginning which might allow us the next look over the hill.  Higgs bosons, gravity waves, the next theory of gravity is on the horizon.



-------
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: 12:35 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What he is saying (correctly) is that there is no adequate quantum description of gravity.  There are a number of descriptions, but they suffer from over generalization, there is no current way to successfully determine which of them is correct.

I think you're overestimating JSF16's question and understanding of gravity.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:40 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It makes sense. I think you're right, Apoapsis.

It's not about JSF16's understanding of gravity, but what he (or his sources) mean.

And yes, we don't have a good quantum depiction of gravity. Your phrase, JSF16, is wrong though. They do work together. We just don't know how.

I doubt that i'll ever understand the explanation, even if humanity can get to explain it some day.

What's your question on this subject anyway, JSF16?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 07:31 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JSF16 at 7:16 PM on April 11, 2009 :
Okay, I have a few questions for the evolutionists.

1. The big bang, according to the big bang, the universe was a unbelievably small, and unbelievably dence. Yet, the law of the small, (Quantum mechanics) and the law of the big, (Gravity) Do not work together.


Utterly irrelevant to evolution.

You shou8ld be bringing this up to physicists and cosmologists.



2. Natural selection, according to naturalk selection, the better, superior animals survive and the lesse die off. The Sheep defies this.



False.

There are differing survuival strategies employed.  Herd animals succeed via numbers.  Sure, many individual sheep are eaten, but the herd lives on.

And it has nothing to do with superiority.


Sheep vs wolf

The sheep produces only 1 offspring a year, the the wolf 4-5. The ratio is 5:1 for the superior creature.


A typical sheep hersd numbers in the hundreds to thousands.  Wolves live in small groups of maybe a dozen, many of whom die due to starvation.

Sheep and wolves do not always live side by side.


Humans weren't around to protect Sheep, wolves would easily destroy them.


If sheep and wolves always cohabitated, you might have a point. Of course, even wolves only pick off one or two animals at a time, it is not like a pack of wolves goes into a herd and just kills everything.

Your whole premise is one big caricature.

3. I have seen numerous skulls, and skeletons of the 'transitional' evidence, and I have noticed something: They are only partially there: Let me explain.

The Skulls: They often only find small pieces of a single skull, and presume what the rest looks like. Now, I am no scientist, but I think that assuming 70% of something that is not there, is not very scientific.


I think you answered your own question.

When one understands anatomy and basic physiology, a few bits of bone can tell a lot about the organism from which it came.
Sure, it would be nice to have complete skeletons, but that is a rare find.  A part of a jaw with a few intact teeth, for instance, can tell a trained paleontologist the creature's:
- general diet (carnivore/herbivore)
- approximate age age
- approximate size
- sex (sometimes)

Please do not assume that actual scientists are as uninformed and naive as you are.


The Skeletons: Like the skulls, only a small amount is usually found and the rest is made up. Sometimes, a skull is found and the entire body is designed off of that. Again, I do not find that is good evidence.


If I find a left humerus, is it a crime to infer what the right one was like?
The skeleton of 'Lucy' was 40% complete.  Are you claiming that filling in the other 60% was 'unscientific'?

Where is Noah's ark?
Where are the bones of the biblical patriarchs?
Why no mention of the plagues of Egypt in any Egyptian writings?
Why is Jericho so much smaller than it is depicted in the bible?


So, If you could answer these, that would be nice.


Answered, and if you can answer why your criticisms have merit, that, too wopuld be nice.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:25 AM on April 13, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Re: The BigBang
Utterly irrelevant to evolution.

You shou8ld be bringing this up to physicists and cosmologists.


Every story has to have a beginning.

The skeleton of 'Lucy' was 40% complete.  Are you claiming that filling in the other 60% was 'unscientific'?


It is when you assume Lucy had human feet in order to fit with your preconceptions. Especially when all the other australopithecines that were found with feet had ape feet.


Where is Noah's ark?
Where are the bones of the biblical patriarchs?
Why no mention of the plagues of Egypt in any Egyptian writings?
Why is Jericho so much smaller than it is depicted in the bible?


I thought we were discussing the fossils -are you uncomfortable with that?




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 07:02 AM on April 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Every story has to have a beginning.
You people are asking for a prequel.

And that's fine, but not in this forum.

It is when you assume Lucy had human feet in order to fit with your preconceptions. Especially when all the other australopithecines that were found with feet had ape feet.
So do we. Especially when you consider that we're apes.


I thought we were discussing the fossils -are you uncomfortable with that?
You're always timid about defending your own delusions.

You still did not provide some explanation for claws, sharp teeth, hollow fangs and venom, armors, electric shocks, stalking abilities, mind controlling chemicals, etc.
Wanna talk about fossils?
Ok.
Where are the fossils from vegan lions to killing lions?
Are you comfortable with that subject?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:08 AM on April 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:02 AM on April 14, 2009 :
Re: The BigBang
Utterly irrelevant to evolution.

You shou8ld be bringing this up to physicists and cosmologists.


Every story has to have a beginning.


And the 'story' of evolution begins with life.  Its source is irrelevant.

The skeleton of 'Lucy' was 40% complete.  Are you claiming that filling in the other 60% was 'unscientific'?


It is when you assume Lucy had human feet in order to fit with your preconceptions.

I see.  So what should have been assumed?

Tell us, with your in-depth understanding of anatomy and kinesiology and physiology, whather feet should have looked like premised on the anatomy of her legs and pelvis.
And also tell me why it is only her feet that seem to matter.

Especially when all the other australopithecines that were found with feet had ape feet.

Please describe 'ape feet' for us.  What are the characteristics of 'ape feet'.

Is this an 'ape' footprint?



It was left by an australopithecine.

Tell us all about it.


Where is Noah's ark?
Where are the bones of the biblical patriarchs?
Why no mention of the plagues of Egypt in any Egyptian writings?
Why is Jericho so much smaller than it is depicted in the bible?


I thought we were discussing the fossils -are you uncomfortable with that?


Not at all, just demonstrating the double standards you folks employ.

It is a shame that you folks decided to run from the 'probability' and the vestigial thread.  I was just starting to have fun.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:43 AM on April 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm shocked that Lester, with his background in anatomy, failed to explain this all to me and put me in my place - why, I'll bet even Timbrx would have heaped praise upon him!

Quote from derwood at 09:43 AM on April 14, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 07:02 AM on April 14, 2009 :
Re: The BigBang
Utterly irrelevant to evolution.

You shou8ld be bringing this up to physicists and cosmologists.


Every story has to have a beginning.


And the 'story' of evolution begins with life.  Its source is irrelevant.

The skeleton of 'Lucy' was 40% complete.  Are you claiming that filling in the other 60% was 'unscientific'?


It is when you assume Lucy had human feet in order to fit with your preconceptions.

I see.  So what should have been assumed?

Tell us, with your in-depth understanding of anatomy and kinesiology and physiology, whather feet should have looked like premised on the anatomy of her legs and pelvis.
And also tell me why it is only her feet that seem to matter.

Especially when all the other australopithecines that were found with feet had ape feet.

Please describe 'ape feet' for us.  What are the characteristics of 'ape feet'.

Is this an 'ape' footprint?



It was left by an australopithecine.

Tell us all about it.


Where is Noah's ark?
Where are the bones of the biblical patriarchs?
Why no mention of the plagues of Egypt in any Egyptian writings?
Why is Jericho so much smaller than it is depicted in the bible?


I thought we were discussing the fossils -are you uncomfortable with that?


Not at all, just demonstrating the double standards you folks employ.

It is a shame that you folks decided to run from the 'probability' and the vestigial thread.  I was just starting to have fun.






-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:45 PM on November 16, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood

I'm shocked that Lester, with his background in anatomy, failed to explain this all to me and put me in my place - why, I'll bet even Timbrx would have heaped praise upon him!


They are good at weasel-ing.  That is, ignoring anything they can't come up with a good counter argument for.  Not that their counter arguments are EVER any good ....

Nice footprint - made in volcanic ash, I presume.  Jerry Coyne mentioned some hominid footprints in his book 'Evolution is Ture' - apparently of a two individuals.  Perhaps of a male and female.  The smaller set of footprints was a little deeper to one side.  Dr Coyne speculated that perhaps she (assuming a female) may have been carrying an infant, perhaps.  

One can easily imagine that it must have been a very frightful experience for them - volcanic eruption, ash coming down, darkness all around.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:13 PM on November 16, 2009 | 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.