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
     Evolution theory
       Christians should accept the evolution theory

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:52 PM on September 22, 2009 :
Look at how simple it is to correlate the fossils you expect to find in parallel layers of sediments, separated vertically by just a few feet, even if you move horizontally by miles or hundreds of miles.

these sediment layers represent millions of years. right?

so if a sediment layer, vertically only 1 meter tall, represents a time frame of as little as a million years. that calculates to each millimetre representing 1,000 years.
so any fossil, even a 1 millimetre tall fossil, must have been buried under layers of dust over 1,000 years


and while your at it here is a question that never got answered
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 8:38 PM on September 14, 2009 :
why after Millions of years does the the sediment layers decide to change so suddenly?
did all the plants and animals in the area just decide "hey, this soil is boring. lets change it to something else"




-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 7:36 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E

and while your at it here is a question that never got answered

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 8:38 PM on September 14, 2009 :
why after Millions of years does the the sediment layers decide to change so suddenly?
did all the plants and animals in the area just decide "hey, this soil is boring. lets change it to something else"



There ample explanation of the many layers of the Grand Canyon on the internet.  

1.  The GC represents about 2 billion years of rock formation.

2.  During that time the region moved across a wide range of the earth via plate tectonics.  Dipping down as far south as the equator before moving back northward.

3.  The area was at times submerged under the sea, and raised as mountains.  

4.  Climate variation - from dry sand dunes to wet swamps.

5.  Layer composed of sandstone, siltstone, limestone, shale, and volcanic material.  The bottommost layer is actually metamorphic rock that was formed under great pressure and temperature deep underground.

6.  Some layers were eroded over time, thus forming stark difference between adjacent layers.

So different layers were formed under different environmental conditions during an immense passage of time.

Remember, while the rock strata of the GC represents 2 billion years in the making, the canyon itself was only formed recently - during the past 6 million years.

Grand Canyon Landscape & Geology
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:57 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 7:36 PM on September 24, 2009 :

these sediment layers represent millions of years. right?


Some do, some don't.  A chalk layer might take a thousand years for a few centimeters.  An ash layer might have been put down in a day.  You have to look at all the evidence available.

so if a sediment layer, vertically only 1 meter tall, represents a time frame of as little as a million years. that calculates to each millimetre representing 1,000 years.
so any fossil, even a 1 millimetre tall fossil, must have been buried under layers of dust over 1,000 years


Fossilization is rare.  Not many have the right conditions.

and while your at it here is a question that never got answered
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 8:38 PM on September 14, 2009 :
why after Millions of years does the the sediment layers decide to change so suddenly?


What is suddenly?  The question doesn't make sense to me.

did all the plants and animals in the area just decide "hey, this soil is boring. lets change it to something else"



Sorry, still not registering.



-------
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: 10:57 PM on September 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 4:56 PM on September 24, 2009 :
So, somewhere between 2105 and 5500 BC - lets see that is an error rate of something like 200%.

But all very biblical and precise....

and evolution gives dates between 1 Million and 10 Billion years

But all very scientific and precise....



You can fabricate with the worst of your kind...




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:41 AM on September 25, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:57 PM on September 24, 2009 :
so if a sediment layer, vertically only 1 meter tall, represents a time frame of as little as a million years. that calculates to each millimetre representing 1,000 years.
so any fossil, even a 1 millimetre tall fossil, must have been buried under layers of dust over 1,000 years

Fossilization is rare.  Not many have the right conditions.
you are totally missing (or ignoring) what I am saying.
even if a millimetre represents a single year, how is it that a fossil can be completely buried before it is eaten, rotted or decayed into dust (depending on time frame)?

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 8:38 PM on September 14, 2009 :
why after Millions of years does the the sediment layers decide to change so suddenly?

What is suddenly?  The question doesn't make sense to me.
I know sediment layer from magma flow, or ash from fires (or sediments settling at the bottom of water) can happen fast, and just dump the new sediments onto the old ones.
but what about when a sediment layer represents the build-up of dust and dirt over thousands of years is right next to another sediment layer representing the build-up of dust and dirt over thousands of years?
at what point of time did the dirt from sediment layer A become the dirt from sediment layer B?


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 09:59 AM on September 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 09:59 AM on September 25, 2009 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 10:57 PM on September 24, 2009 :
so if a sediment layer, vertically only 1 meter tall, represents a time frame of as little as a million years. that calculates to each millimetre representing 1,000 years.
so any fossil, even a 1 millimetre tall fossil, must have been buried under layers of dust over 1,000 years

Fossilization is rare.  Not many have the right conditions.
you are totally missing (or ignoring) what I am saying.
even if a millimetre represents a single year, how is it that a fossil can be completely buried before it is eaten, rotted or decayed into dust (depending on time frame)?


Most of the time that does happen.  In some special circumstances, for instance, still anoxic water, you can have distinctive layers a millimeter thick with separate fossils.

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 8:38 PM on September 14, 2009 :
why after Millions of years does the the sediment layers decide to change so suddenly?

What is suddenly?  The question doesn't make sense to me.
I know sediment layer from magma flow, or ash from fires (or sediments settling at the bottom of water) can happen fast, and just dump the new sediments onto the old ones.
but what about when a sediment layer represents the build-up of dust and dirt over thousands of years is right next to another sediment layer representing the build-up of dust and dirt over thousands of years?
at what point of time did the dirt from sediment layer A become the dirt from sediment layer B?


It's generally because of a climatic shift that changes the deposition environment.



-------
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: 10:10 AM on September 25, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


The term Evolution,Has 6 meanings.1 Cosmic evolution  origin of space,time,matter.The big bang.2 Chemical evolution origin of higher elements from Hydrogen and Helium.Products of the Big Bang.3 Stella and planetary evolution.Origin of stars and planets.No one has ever seen a star form,Brightening spots of light in space.Could be formation of stars but could also be dust/gas clouds clearing in front of an existing star.4 Organic evolution, Origin of life.5 Macro evolution,Changing from one kind of animal into another kind of animal, Species.Never observed.6 Micro evolution,variations within kinds/species.Only this one has been observed.we can all see this type of micro evolution with our own eyes In nature.The other 5 kinds of evolution are open theoretical speculation,Therefore cant be proven,Not as yet at least.Science [
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 10:26 PM on September 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Think Twice
The other 5 kinds of evolution are open theoretical speculation,Therefore cant be proven,Not as yet at least.Science


You might want to think twice about what you say.  Those 'theoretical speculations' all have some pretty strong observational evidence backing them up, not to mention having a pretty good track record of making successful predictions.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:18 PM on September 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The term Evolution,Has 6 meanings...

Actually, when we discuss evolution here, we are generally discussing the biological theory of evolution, which  means the change of alleles in a population over time.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:05 AM on September 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, when we discuss evolution here, we are generally discussing the biological theory of evolution, which  means the change of alleles in a population over time.


So you are limiting yourself to No. 5 and No. 6 -where 6 is factual and scientific and 5. is proposed, but not a matter of evidence, as an extension of 5.


-------
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: 03:23 AM on September 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So you are limiting yourself to No. 5 and No. 6 -where 6 is factual and scientific and 5. is proposed, but not a matter of evidence, as an extension of 5.

No, science limits itself to 5 and 6 when discussing evolution, that's how science works.
And macroevolution is an established fact.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:20 AM on September 26, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If macro evolution is fact.then evolutionists should of video taped it.As seeing one species giving birth to a new species.Now seeing is believing,When we are dealing with things tangible.Historical evidence is hard to rely on strictly as proof positive.Fact is a positive statement that implies proof positive.That is by no means the case.Is it a fact that a graptolite is an index fossil ?.if so could you tell what time period
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:54 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How on earth could Obviously( Human) hand made artefacts be found in coal seems.
Curious and seemingly impossible.From the point of view of evolution.But fun  

 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:01 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 7:36 PM on September 24, 2009 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 11:52 PM on September 22, 2009 :
Look at how simple it is to correlate the fossils you expect to find in parallel layers of sediments, separated vertically by just a few feet, even if you move horizontally by miles or hundreds of miles.

these sediment layers represent millions of years. right?

so if a sediment layer, vertically only 1 meter tall, represents a time frame of as little as a million years. that calculates to each millimetre representing 1,000 years.
so any fossil, even a 1 millimetre tall fossil, must have been buried under layers of dust over 1,000 years


and while your at it here is a question that never got answered
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 8:38 PM on September 14, 2009 :
why after Millions of years does the the sediment layers decide to change so suddenly?
did all the plants and animals in the area just decide "hey, this soil is boring. lets change it to something else"



How on earth could Obviously( Human) hand made artefacts be found in coal seems.
Curious and seemingly impossible.From the point of view of evolution.But fun  



 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:03 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well If macro evolution is fact.then evolutionists should of video taped it.As seeing one species giving birth to a new species.Now seeing is believing,When we are dealing with things tangible.Historical evidence is hard to rely on strictly as proof positive.Fact is a positive statement that implies proof positive.That is by no means the case.Is it a fact that a graptolite is an index fossil ?.if so could you tell what time period
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:10 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Is it a fact that a graptolite is an index fossil ?.if so could you tell what time period
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:11 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 6:15 PM on September 24, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 4:56 PM on September 24, 2009 :
So, somewhere between 2105 and 5500 BC - lets see that is an error rate of something like 200%.

But all very biblical and precise....

and evolution gives dates between 1 Million and 10 Billion years

But all very scientific and precise....


For the global Flood of Noah, science gives a date of never.




The bible says 4400years ago.

 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:13 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 5:11 PM on September 27, 2009 :
Is it a fact that a graptolite is an index fossil ?.if so could you tell what time period


Appears to be Mid-Cambrian through Mid-Carboniferous.

You need to be very specific about which form you are referring to:




-------
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: 6:05 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dinosaur Soft Tissues: They're Real!
by Brian Thomas, M.S.* ...Interesting article.Worth a browse  http://www.icr.org/article/4819/
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 6:13 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 6:05 PM on September 27, 2009 :
Quote from Think-Twice at 5:11 PM on September 27, 2009 :
Is it a fact that a graptolite is an index fossil ?.if so could you tell what time period


Appears to be Mid-Cambrian through Mid-Carboniferous.

You need to be very specific about which form you are referring to:




So graptolite index roughly 420 - 450 mil y a.Hmm not evolved much  since then.That is a very long time ago.They are still around today i believe.Hardly any more complex now than they were then,Am i justified in saying unchanged?.Seems some organisms decide (by some process)to stop in they're evolutionary tracks.Not just micro organisms.By what process does a creature halt evolutionary progression?.Thanks for your reply Apoapsis,thanks for your time

 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 6:36 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 6:36 PM on September 27, 2009 :
So graptolite index roughly 420 - 450 mil y a.


No, about 350-510 million years ago.


Hmm not evolved much  since then.


Very few species do after they become extinct.


That is a very long time ago.They are still around today i believe.


Only in fossil form.

Hardly any more complex now than they were then,Am i justified in saying unchanged?.


Very justified, fossils change very little other than undergoing metamorphic changes with their matrix rock.  A number of graptolite fossils are found in chert.


Seems some organisms decide (by some process)to stop in they're evolutionary tracks.Not just micro organisms.By what process does a creature halt evolutionary progression?.


Death, extinction.

Thanks for your reply Apoapsis,thanks for your time


You are welcome.



-------
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: 7:21 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 7:21 PM on September 27, 2009 :
Quote from Think-Twice at 6:36 PM on September 27, 2009 :
So graptolite index roughly 420 - 450 mil y a.


No, about 350-510 million years ago.


Hmm not evolved much  since then.


Very few species do after they become extinct.


That is a very long time ago.They are still around today i believe.


Only in fossil form.

Hardly any more complex now than they were then,Am i justified in saying unchanged?.


Very justified, fossils change very little other than undergoing metamorphic changes with their matrix rock.  A number of graptolite fossils are found in chert.


Seems some organisms decide (by some process)to stop in they're evolutionary tracks.Not just micro organisms.By what process does a creature halt evolutionary progression?.


Death, extinction.

Thanks for your reply Apoapsis,thanks for your time


You are welcome.




They are still alive today.In the south pacific,Earth magazine sept 1993.yours sincerely creationist
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 7:35 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Cool!

I wonder if anybody is sequencing this thing, sounds like they're still arguing if it is or isn't.

Graptolite.net

(Edited by Apoapsis 9/27/2009 at 8:00 PM).


-------
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: 7:48 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 7:48 PM on September 27, 2009 :
Cool!

I wonder if anybody is sequencing this thing, sounds like they're still arguing if it is or isn't.

Graptolite.net

(Edited by Apoapsis 9/27/2009 at 8:00 PM).




 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 08:11 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 08:11 AM on September 28, 2009 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 7:48 PM on September 27, 2009 :
Cool!

I wonder if anybody is sequencing this thing, sounds like they're still arguing if it is or isn't.

Graptolite.net

(Edited by Apoapsis 9/27/2009 at 8:00 PM).






Yes still deciding.http://discovermagazine.com/1993/jul/itsaliveanditsag249


 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 08:14 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

If macro evolution is fact.then evolutionists should of video taped it.As seeing one species giving birth to a new species.

Individual organisms don't evolve, populations evolve.  And yes, we have seen this happen.  It's just pretty hard to video tape an entire population evolving.  Why don't you accpe the rest of the evidence that proves this.  Macro evolution is a fact.

Historical evidence is hard to rely on strictly as proof positive.

Good thing we don't have to rely on historical evidence when dealing with biology.

Fact is a positive statement that implies proof positive.That is by no means the
case.


As far as one new species arising, yes it is a fact.  Numerous examples have been sited, likethis one:

"Announced in the scientific journal Ibis the new species, Vanikoro white-eye or Zosterops gibbsi, sports a distinct bill and unique colors on its legs and eye-rings.
“Genetic research has shown that white-eyes evolve new species faster than any known bird family,” orinthologist Guy Dutson of Birdlife Australia told the parents "

And from Yeast Evolution

"In fact, yeast is used in studies as a model organism. We can study all sorts of things in yeast that are directly applicable to us—like cancer and aging, for example. Think of yeast as a one cell version of us...
So with yeast, we greatly increase our chances at finding that needle in the haystack, a new species. In fact scientists have found that they can create new species of yeast in the lab and they find them in nature too.
What they've done is mated two species of yeast that create a new, sterile yeast (a sort of yeast version of a mule). Then they just searched through lots and lots of yeast to find one of these sterile ones that wasn't actually sterile.
They then grew up this new yeast and found that it couldn't mate with the first two species but that it could create new versions of itself. Voila, a new species is born.
It is important to remember that this isn't some artificial, weird lab thing. New yeast species are being created in the wild as we speak. And anyone who drinks beer can thank evolution as well."

So new species arising in the lab and in the wild is a fact, macro evolution is a fact, as these examples and thousands of others demonstrate.



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:04 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
I am God

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 2:04 PM on September 28, 2009 :
If macro evolution is fact.then evolutionists should of video taped it.As seeing one species giving birth to a new species.

Individual organisms don't evolve, populations evolve.  And yes, we have seen this happen.  It's just pretty hard to video tape an entire population evolving.  Why don't you accpe the rest of the evidence that proves this.  Macro evolution is a fact.

Historical evidence is hard to rely on strictly as proof positive.

Good thing we don't have to rely on historical evidence when dealing with biology.

Fact is a positive statement that implies proof positive.That is by no means the
case.


As far as one new species arising, yes it is a fact.  Numerous examples have been sited, likethis one:

"Announced in the scientific journal Ibis the new species, Vanikoro white-eye or Zosterops gibbsi, sports a distinct bill and unique colors on its legs and eye-rings.
“Genetic research has shown that white-eyes evolve new species faster than any known bird family,” orinthologist Guy Dutson of Birdlife Australia told the parents "

And from Yeast Evolution

"In fact, yeast is used in studies as a model organism. We can study all sorts of things in yeast that are directly applicable to us—like cancer and aging, for example. Think of yeast as a one cell version of us...
So with yeast, we greatly increase our chances at finding that needle in the haystack, a new species. In fact scientists have found that they can create new species of yeast in the lab and they find them in nature too.
What they've done is mated two species of yeast that create a new, sterile yeast (a sort of yeast version of a mule). Then they just searched through lots and lots of yeast to find one of these sterile ones that wasn't actually sterile.
They then grew up this new yeast and found that it couldn't mate with the first two species but that it could create new versions of itself. Voila, a new species is born.
It is important to remember that this isn't some artificial, weird lab thing. New yeast species are being created in the wild as we speak. And anyone who drinks beer can thank evolution as well."

So new species arising in the lab and in the wild is a fact, macro evolution is a fact, as these examples and thousands of others demonstrate.





too much bold text, didn't read.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:07 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

How on earth could Obviously( Human) hand made artefacts be found in coal seems.
Curious and seemingly impossible.From the point of view of evolution.But fun  


Usually they're are proven to be of recent origin or hoaxes, you haven't mentioned any specific examples so I can't directly comment.  Give us an example and we'll discuss it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:08 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
I am God

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 2:08 PM on September 28, 2009 :
How on earth could Obviously( Human) hand made artefacts be found in coal seems.
Curious and seemingly impossible.From the point of view of evolution.But fun  


Usually they're are proven to be of recent origin or hoaxes, you haven't mentioned any specific examples so I can't directly comment.  Give us an example and we'll discuss it.



eg: have you ever woken up and pressed the snooze alarm? don't you hate that, man?
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:11 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

Is it a fact that a graptolite is an index fossil ?.if so could you tell what time period

Don't know what your problem with graptolite fossils is and I don't know why you couldn't look it up yourself, but it took me 2 minutes to find this:
Graptolite Fossils

"Graptolites are common fossils and have a worldwide distribution. The preservation, quantity and gradual change over a geologic time scale of graptolites allows the fossils to be used to date strata of rocks throughout the world.[1] They are important index fossils for dating Palaeozoic rocks as they evolved rapidly with time and formed many different species. British geologists can divide the rocks of the Ordovician and Silurian periods into graptolite biozones; these are generally less than one million years in duration. A world-wide ice age at the end of the Ordovician eliminated the majority of the then-living graptolite; species present during the Silurian period were the result of diversification from only a one or two species that survived the Ordovician glaciation.[1]"



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:12 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
I am God

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 2:12 PM on September 28, 2009 :
Is it a fact that a graptolite is an index fossil ?.if so could you tell what time period

Don't know what your problem with graptolite fossils is and I don't know why you couldn't look it up yourself, but it took me 2 minutes to find this:
Graptolite Fossils

"Graptolites are common fossils and have a worldwide distribution. The preservation, quantity and gradual change over a geologic time scale of graptolites allows the fossils to be used to date strata of rocks throughout the world.[1] They are important index fossils for dating Palaeozoic rocks as they evolved rapidly with time and formed many different species. British geologists can divide the rocks of the Ordovician and Silurian periods into graptolite biozones; these are generally less than one million years in duration. A world-wide ice age at the end of the Ordovician eliminated the majority of the then-living graptolite; species present during the Silurian period were the result of diversification from only a one or two species that survived the Ordovician glaciation.[1]"






I read of all that and think it was a very clever post

(I'm not lying, honest!)
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:13 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
-1

Rate this post:

The bible says 4400years ago.

Yes, we know, although creationists have different interpretations of what the bible says about when the flood occurred.  the point is, if your claiming that it was a world wide flood, science has proven this myth wrong.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:13 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
I am God

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 2:13 PM on September 28, 2009 :
The bible says 4400years ago.

Yes, we know, although creationists have different interpretations of what the bible says about when the flood occurred.  the point is, if your claiming that it was a world wide flood, science has proven this myth wrong.



actually it's 4399 years but who's counting?

oh right.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:15 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 2:04 PM on September 28, 2009 :
If macro evolution is fact.then evolutionists should of video taped it.As seeing one species giving birth to a new species.

Individual organisms don't evolve, populations evolve.  And yes, we have seen this happen.  It's just pretty hard to video tape an entire population evolving.  Why don't you accpe the rest of the evidence that proves this.  Macro evolution is a fact.

Historical evidence is hard to rely on strictly as proof positive.

Good thing we don't have to rely on historical evidence when dealing with biology.

Fact is a positive statement that implies proof positive.That is by no means the
case.


As far as one new species arising, yes it is a fact.  Numerous examples have been sited, likethis one:

"Announced in the scientific journal Ibis the new species, Vanikoro white-eye or Zosterops gibbsi, sports a distinct bill and unique colors on its legs and eye-rings.
“Genetic research has shown that white-eyes evolve new species faster than any known bird family,” orinthologist Guy Dutson of Birdlife Australia told the parents "

And from Yeast Evolution

"In fact, yeast is used in studies as a model organism. We can study all sorts of things in yeast that are directly applicable to us—like cancer and aging, for example. Think of yeast as a one cell version of us...
So with yeast, we greatly increase our chances at finding that needle in the haystack, a new species. In fact scientists have found that they can create new species of yeast in the lab and they find them in nature too.
What they've done is mated two species of yeast that create a new, sterile yeast (a sort of yeast version of a mule). Then they just searched through lots and lots of yeast to find one of these sterile ones that wasn't actually sterile.
They then grew up this new yeast and found that it couldn't mate with the first two species but that it could create new versions of itself. Voila, a new species is born.
It is important to remember that this isn't some artificial, weird lab thing. New yeast species are being created in the wild as we speak. And anyone who drinks beer can thank evolution as well."

So new species arising in the lab and in the wild is a fact, macro evolution is a fact, as these examples and thousands of others demonstrate.





In the lab is selective breeding,man having his guided input.Think of yeast as a one cell version of us...Now really a version of us one cell,No cant think of it as that.And i have a good imagination.Like Darwin’s finches, these birds have evolved unique beak structures and feeding behaviours in the absence of competitors.”Micro evolution nothing more.Natural selection.What was the title of Darwin s book,The famous one?

 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:30 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 09:41 AM on September 25, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 4:56 PM on September 24, 2009 :
So, somewhere between 2105 and 5500 BC - lets see that is an error rate of something like 200%.

But all very biblical and precise....

and evolution gives dates between 1 Million and 10 Billion years

But all very scientific and precise....



You can fabricate with the worst of your kind...


Y
We  can fabricate with the worst of our kind...
Hey we must a whole new species!.


 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 5:52 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In the lab is selective breeding,man having his guided input.

This is not true, man is not guiding all evolution experiments.  Natural conditions are trying to be reproduced.  Yes, in some experimets selective breeding is employed, but the yeast experimets mentioned here is something that could have happened in the wild and evolution resulted from it.  There are numerous experiments like that where natural conditions are replicated and the subject population evolves into new species.  You haven't been able to disprove this.  As stated, new species (macro evolution) is a well established fact.

Think of yeast as a one cell version of
us...


Why, yeasts are NOT one celled.

Like Darwin’s finches, these birds have evolved unique beak structures and feeding behaviours in the absence of competitors

And they no longer breed with their old population, they are a new species, this is macro evolution.  You can't come in here with your own definitions then tell us we're wrong because you've changed science.  As stated, macro evolution has been observed, it's a well established fact.

Natural selection.

A part of evolution.

What was the title of Darwin s book,The famous one?

You mean "Origin of the Species"?  And yes, it has been confirmed.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:46 AM on September 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are numerous experiments like that where natural conditions are replicated and the subject population evolves into new species.


A new species is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a new kind. A yeast remains a yeast, visibly and undeniably so. No yeast has ever converted to anything other than a yeast. Bacteria and fruit flies have also had their chance through many generations equivalent to millions of years -but what do we get? More of the same, with some more mutilated than others.No new and useful organs since there is no new information, only mutated information.

That means if you had a leg, it is now still a leg, maybe even a new leg, maybe even a leg on your head but no wing where there was a leg, no miracles of any kind.

And they no longer breed with their old population, they are a new species, this is macro evolution.


Only by the evolutionist's necessarily slack definition of macroevolution. Imagine if they had to wait for a new organ or a new outer body part -they'd be waiting forever.They realize this,so in the meantime they push  speciation in the place of real evidence for macroevolution in order to deceive us as well as themselves.

As stated, macro evolution has been observed, it's a well established fact.


Variation within the kind is a well established fact. Survival of the fittest finches does not even begin to explain arrival of the finches or anything else for that matter.

I think you all know this but are intent on suppressing the truth. It's called being dumb on purpose in the hopes that such mental gymnastics will keep evolution alive.





-------
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: 02:50 AM on September 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester - how do you explain the hominid fossil record?  There have been quite a few found, dating back to 6-7 million years ago.  Anyone looking at the fossils can tell that there is a progressive trend toward more human features from distinctly more ape-like features with the passage of time.  

Of course, you don't believe in the dating of the fossils, so you blithely toss the whole issue aside.  But the fossils remain.  The progression from ape-like fossils to more human features is unmistakable.  I would definitely classify it as an example of macro evolution.

Can you accept that there are some processes that take place so slowly that you can't normally observe them within a human lifetime, or even over the span of many generations?  

The spreading apart of the contients would be one such process.  It's slow, but we know its happening.

Stars go through a life-cycle process of being formed, moving to a long main-sequence stage, then eventual end after their nuclear fuel is spent.  It's a process that takes a long time.  We can't observe a single star pass through this process, but we know its happening.

The Grand Canyon is continuing to be carved out by forces acting on it - by water (river) and wind.  We can't see measurable changes in one person's life-time, but it is happening.

Evolution is the same sort of thing.  We can see evidence of populations changing as the natural selection proceeds.  But the accumulation of these small changes to produce major morphorlogical changes takes time.

The earth and universe (and life) are dynamic in nature.  They are not static, as you would like to believe.  Evolution is a dynamic process, but it takes time.  But we know it has happened by looking at the evidence we see in the fossil record, molecular/genetic comparision, cladistics, biogeography, etc.  

It's there for you to see if you're willing to look.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 07:45 AM on September 29, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To creationists,from a creationist,God be with you!,Please take the time to watch these videos at youtube.There are two series 3 in this one   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APteM6w79XY&feature=related    Also please watch this series there are 5 in the series, Please note this series is heavy and shocking,please watch them all.Even after you see the first in this series,Please go on through the rest    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raOxf9nXpVs&feature=related    Any evolutionists would do well to watch also,Science is included in the first series manly. may the Grace of god go with all people!.Thank you
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 12:52 PM on September 29, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 12:52 PM on September 29, 2009 :
To creationists,from a creationist,God be with you!


Luke 6:32-33 "But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same."

Mark 9:37-39 "Whoever receives one of these little children in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me, receives not Me but Him who sent Me.” Now John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.” But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me.

Not all Christians are creationists.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 2:06 PM on September 29, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 5:40 PM on September 29, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 11:40 PM on September 29, 2009 :
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1

Unfortunately, the only evidence that you have for that is ... nope, absolutely none whatsoever. (pssst: A fairytale in a storybook doesn't count as evidence)


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 5:58 PM on September 29, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JimIrvine, if you had bothered to scroll up even one post you would realise that my last post was in response to Fencer27 saying "Not all Christians are creationists"


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 6:16 PM on September 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 12:52 PM on September 29, 2009 :
To creationists,from a creationist,God be with you!,Please take the time to watch these videos at youtube.There are two series 3 in this one   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APteM6w79XY&feature=related    Also please watch this series there are 5 in the series, Please note this series is heavy and shocking,please watch them all.Even after you see the first in this series,Please go on through the rest    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raOxf9nXpVs&feature=related    Any evolutionists would do well to watch also,Science is included in the first series manly. may the Grace of god go with all people!.Thank you



So T-T, are evolutionists evil?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:30 PM on September 29, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 5:40 PM on September 29, 2009 :
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1


While the term itself is broad, I was referring to creationism as the literal belief in Genesis, as it is the default use on forums like these.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 01:49 AM on September 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion
how do you explain the hominid fossil record?


Well you realize that you have to believe it in order to see it, don’t you?
The ones that look more ape-like are apes, the ones that look more human, are humans. Even today you have a wide range of physical facial features in humans as well as cranial capacities but in many fundamental ways we are distinctly separate and different from apes. There’s also artistic licence in these evolutionary depictions of cave men.
If we don’t have any definite evidence for the ability of one kind of creature to change into another kind (speciation aside for obvious reasons) then you are relying on philosophy for your interpretation of the evidence.

Another thing to think about is where are all the bones? Leave the few million years and just consider 1 million years of human habitation of the earth. Give them a growth rate of 0,01% just to be way overly fair to evolutionists (that’s doubling every 7000 years) and you get a figure of 10 with 43 zeroes. (Sorry don't know how to superscript here)

Here’s the comparison: If you give every person a square metre of land space on every available piece of earth’s land area, then take every one of those square metres and turned each one into another entire planet just like this one and put people (1 square metre each) over the land area of every one of those planets, you’d have space for 10/28 (10 followed by 28 zeroes) people and that’s only a fraction of the space required.

So the questions are: Where are all the people? Where are all the dead bodies buried? What is going on?

Of course, you don't believe in the dating of the fossils, so you blithely toss the whole issue aside.  


Not blithely at all. Remember I used to believe all of it. Apart from the many significant problems with dating, you need to use philosophy in your dealing with the evidence in order to see what evolutionists see. It’s a metaphysical belief system and is there’s very little actual science in it.

But the fossils remain.  The progression from ape-like fossils to more human features is unmistakable.


No, it is very mistakable, but only if you believe that one kind (eg ape) can change into another (eg human). A fossil is a dead organism. It does not speak and has no dating labels attached. It has to be interpreted. All you actually know is that it died, you don’t even know where it died. You only know where it was buried.

Can you accept that there are some processes that take place so slowly that you can't normally observe them within a human lifetime, or even over the span of many generations?


Can you accept that you believe that though you cannot see that –it’s certainly not happening now. I am taking the evidence as is and you are taking an imaginative extension of the evidence that exists and trying to turn it into the actual evidence.

The spreading apart of the contients would be one such process.  It's slow, but we know its happening.


However we do not know how long it has been happening; so once again you have to superimpose your beliefs on the evidence.

.  We can't observe a single star pass through this process, but we know its happening.


You know that they explode but you don’t know for sure how they formed. You believe a naturalistic explanation is in order but no one has ever seen one form (imagination aside). Considering the number of them out there, they should be forming at a great rate and we should observe it happening all the time but we don’t.

The Grand Canyon is continuing to be carved out by forces acting on it - by water (river) and wind.  


Yes and that too is observable but is the grand canyon due to a little water over a long time OR a lot of water over a short period of time. There are lots of features that are consistent with the latter being true. Uniformatarianism is a belief not consistent with the the evidence.
We can see evidence of populations changing as the natural selection proceeds.  But the accumulation of these small changes to produce major morphorlogical changes takes time.


The evidence shows that they always change within limits and nothing demonstrates that these limits (fruit fly to fruit fly; salmonella bacteria to salmonella bacteria; dog to dog) can be breached. If it can be, you need to demonstrate it rather than just believe it. Then we'd all believe it and this debate wouldn't be happening.

The earth and universe (and life) are dynamic in nature.  They are not static, as you would like to believe.


That’s a commonly used straw man. No creationist believes that there is total stasis. We all believe in change; only we believe what has been demonstrated, that there are limits.You believe what has not been demonstrated, that there are no limits to how complex a bacteria, given time and opportunity, can get.

.  Evolution is a dynamic process, but it takes time.  


Time, that magical ingredient that gives rise to unbelievable increases in information. Time actually does nothing but allow the evidence to be ever unobservable.

But we know it has happened by looking at the evidence we see in the fossil record, molecular/genetic comparision, cladistics, biogeography, etc.


Fossils don’t speak, they are interpreted, molecular comparisons could just as easily be due to the actions of an intelligent designer who knew we needed to eat.

We believe what we see and interpret based on what we actually see.
You see because you believe and your interpretation is based on what you cannot see but which you believe based on your philosophy.  







-------
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: 04:14 AM on September 30, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:14 AM on September 30, 2009 :
Orion
how do you explain the hominid fossil record?


Well you realize that you have to believe it in order to see it, don’t you?
The ones that look more ape-like are apes, the ones that look more human, are humans. Even today you have a wide range of physical facial features in humans as well as cranial capacities but in many fundamental ways we are distinctly separate and different from apes. There’s also artistic licence in these evolutionary depictions of cave men.
If we don’t have any definite evidence for the ability of one kind of creature to change into another kind (speciation aside for obvious reasons) then you are relying on philosophy for your interpretation of the evidence.

Another thing to think about is where are all the bones? Leave the few million years and just consider 1 million years of human habitation of the earth. Give them a growth rate of 0,01% just to be way overly fair to evolutionists (that’s doubling every 7000 years) and you get a figure of 10 with 43 zeroes. (Sorry don't know how to superscript here)

Here’s the comparison: If you give every person a square metre of land space on every available piece of earth’s land area, then take every one of those square metres and turned each one into another entire planet just like this one and put people (1 square metre each) over the land area of every one of those planets, you’d have space for 10/28 (10 followed by 28 zeroes) people and that’s only a fraction of the space required.

So the questions are: Where are all the people? Where are all the dead bodies buried? What is going on?

Of course, you don't believe in the dating of the fossils, so you blithely toss the whole issue aside.  


Not blithely at all. Remember I used to believe all of it. Apart from the many significant problems with dating, you need to use philosophy in your dealing with the evidence in order to see what evolutionists see. It’s a metaphysical belief system and is there’s very little actual science in it.

But the fossils remain.  The progression from ape-like fossils to more human features is unmistakable.


No, it is very mistakable, but only if you believe that one kind (eg ape) can change into another (eg human). A fossil is a dead organism. It does not speak and has no dating labels attached. It has to be interpreted. All you actually know is that it died, you don’t even know where it died. You only know where it was buried.

Can you accept that there are some processes that take place so slowly that you can't normally observe them within a human lifetime, or even over the span of many generations?


Can you accept that you believe that though you cannot see that –it’s certainly not happening now. I am taking the evidence as is and you are taking an imaginative extension of the evidence that exists and trying to turn it into the actual evidence.

The spreading apart of the contients would be one such process.  It's slow, but we know its happening.


However we do not know how long it has been happening; so once again you have to superimpose your beliefs on the evidence.

.  We can't observe a single star pass through this process, but we know its happening.


You know that they explode but you don’t know for sure how they formed. You believe a naturalistic explanation is in order but no one has ever seen one form (imagination aside). Considering the number of them out there, they should be forming at a great rate and we should observe it happening all the time but we don’t.

The Grand Canyon is continuing to be carved out by forces acting on it - by water (river) and wind.  


Yes and that too is observable but is the grand canyon due to a little water over a long time OR a lot of water over a short period of time. There are lots of features that are consistent with the latter being true. Uniformatarianism is a belief not consistent with the the evidence.
We can see evidence of populations changing as the natural selection proceeds.  But the accumulation of these small changes to produce major morphorlogical changes takes time.


The evidence shows that they always change within limits and nothing demonstrates that these limits (fruit fly to fruit fly; salmonella bacteria to salmonella bacteria; dog to dog) can be breached. If it can be, you need to demonstrate it rather than just believe it. Then we'd all believe it and this debate wouldn't be happening.

The earth and universe (and life) are dynamic in nature.  They are not static, as you would like to believe.


That’s a commonly used straw man. No creationist believes that there is total stasis. We all believe in change; only we believe what has been demonstrated, that there are limits.You believe what has not been demonstrated, that there are no limits to how complex a bacteria, given time and opportunity, can get.

.  Evolution is a dynamic process, but it takes time.  


Time, that magical ingredient that gives rise to unbelievable increases in information. Time actually does nothing but allow the evidence to be ever unobservable.

But we know it has happened by looking at the evidence we see in the fossil record, molecular/genetic comparision, cladistics, biogeography, etc.


Fossils don’t speak, they are interpreted, molecular comparisons could just as easily be due to the actions of an intelligent designer who knew we needed to eat.

We believe what we see and interpret based on what we actually see.
You see because you believe and your interpretation is based on what you cannot see but which you believe based on your philosophy.  





Good post Lester10,A nod of appreciation,Your patience should be a lesson to me.The Lord is my rock,My God is my rock.Have you read the book,bones of contention,By Marvin L. Lubenow.A creationists Assessment of  human fossils.A good book on the subject,Evolutionists would find a few skeletons in the closet within these pages,Regarding honest open interpretations of the theory of human evolution.thanks



 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:31 PM on September 30, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 2:12 PM on September 28, 2009 :
Is it a fact that a graptolite is an index fossil ?.if so could you tell what time period

Don't know what your problem with graptolite fossils is and I don't know why you couldn't look it up yourself, but it took me 2 minutes to find this:
Graptolite Fossils

"Graptolites are common fossils and have a worldwide distribution. The preservation, quantity and gradual change over a geologic time scale of graptolites allows the fossils to be used to date strata of rocks throughout the world.[1] They are important index fossils for dating Palaeozoic rocks as they evolved rapidly with time and formed many different species. British geologists can divide the rocks of the Ordovician and Silurian periods into graptolite biozones; these are generally less than one million years in duration. A world-wide ice age at the end of the Ordovician eliminated the majority of the then-living graptolite; species present during the Silurian period were the result of diversification from only a one or two species that survived the Ordovician glaciation.[1]"




If grapotolites have been around all this time.Then how can they be a valid index fossil?.Fact is if presented two separate pieces of limestone,Both taken from different strata,Separated by millions of years,there is no way geologists could even guess at the age unless they found a fossil.But if they found a graptolite fossil,Then the age would be the indicated index age.But there are graptolites around today,The same or so similar that  they cant be told apart from fossils.Undermines the index status,Demands a rethink to at least the index designated to graptolites in fossil form.thank !  


 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:47 PM on September 30, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 11:18 PM on September 25, 2009 :
Think Twice
The other 5 kinds of evolution are open theoretical speculation,Therefore cant be proven,Not as yet at least.Science


You might want to think twice about what you say.  Those 'theoretical speculations' all have some pretty strong observational evidence backing them up, not to mention having a pretty good track record of making successful predictions.


the prediction that
'fossil fish' called coelacanths.Are actually alive,Go to youtube and see a fossil swimming,Not sinking like a stone.Japanese and Indonesians researchers have rare footage of live 'fossil fish' called coelacanths.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYOf2wIoxgo
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:55 PM on September 30, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 9:30 PM on September 29, 2009 :
Quote from Think-Twice at 12:52 PM on September 29, 2009 :
To creationists,from a creationist,God be with you!,Please take the time to watch these videos at youtube.There are two series 3 in this one   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APteM6w79XY&feature=related    Also please watch this series there are 5 in the series, Please note this series is heavy and shocking,please watch them all.Even after you see the first in this series,Please go on through the rest    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raOxf9nXpVs&feature=related    Any evolutionists would do well to watch also,Science is included in the first series manly. may the Grace of god go with all people!.Thank you



So T-T, are evolutionists evil?

I'm a creationist,No evolutionists are not evil,but the devil is.But i think the theory is his idea,i think a strong delusion is prevalent(the revelation of Christ,last book of the Holy  Bible).You look after your soul,As we do have one contrary to some peoples belief.All people are free to beleave  what they want,Evolutionist are people and i know they love their children,family!.Peace to all mankind,Thanks!

 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 7:03 PM on September 30, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
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.