Last Login: 02/02/2010 5:35 pm
Registered: 09/30/2009
Gender: Male
Birthday: 01/06
1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
You currently have zero playlists!
Comments
View All Comments
GOD BLESS!
~Nina~
Since when was providing evidence and refutations equivalent to that? I see a shitload of projecting because with regards to creation that is EXACTLY what creationists do - Micheal Behe pretty much said that multiple times on the witness stand in Kitzmiller v. Dover when presented with evidence refuting things like irreducible complexity.
"there is no proof for evolution"
In a scientific sense no, because you don't have proof in science. However, if we're talking about the law then there is proof and lots of it.
"you can not use bones as evidence for anything because it's dead all you know is it died that' it."
...we can't use skeletons to determine the general structure of an animal's body? Furthermore, what about DNA evidence? The same principles used in paternity testing for things like child support can be applied to determine whether or not we share a common ancestor with another given animal as well as a general idea of about when that common ancestor lived and thus where we might expect to find fossilized remains of that ancestor in the geological column.
"And as for you it's a creation site therefore I'll ignore it claim then I guess I can ignore everything you say because it's from evolution sites. I swear it's like talking to brick walls."
Thanks for showing how intellectually dishonest you are and ignoring the question I asked immediately following that. If your claims are indeed scientific, why are you citing a creationist website and not a paper published in a scientific journal?
"Give me proof that a horse can become a dog."
Evolution doesn't claim this to have happened anywhere. Dogs are carnivores (order Carnivora), horses are odd-toed ungulates (order Perissodactyla). They're both eutherian mammals, but that's about where the similarities end. The precursors to horses (and other odd-toed ungulates) diverged from other eutherians less than ten million years after the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event (about 65 Ma) while the precursors to dogs (and other carnivores) diverged at around 42 Ma. You won't see a horse evolve into a dog because the two are vastly different nowadays mainly in that one eats plants and the other eats meat. This means that there are vast differences in their digestive anatomy alone. Horses, being herbivorous, also fall into the category of prey whereas dogs are carnivores and traditionally predators or in some cases scavengers. Because of these roles, horses have their eyes located on the sides of their head to give them a greater view of the area, while dogs have their eyes on the front of their face in order to give them depth perception. Need I continue?
""First, we have to assume a huge change in environment makes larger mammals easy prey:"
Or use geological strata as well as, say, deposits of fossil fuels in order to determine what the environment was like and when changes in the environment occurred. We know what environments produced the remains needed to form oil and coal, we can study geological formations that are strong indicators of things like glaciation events (ice ages), volcanic eruptions, floods and tsunamis (both of these lay down sediment for strata exceptionally quickly!), and even impacts from space. We can't predict what the weather was like on this day in 3,209,814 BCE, but we can get a good idea of what the climate was like then.
Want to know the best indicator of a major environmental shift? Strata that are absolutely laden with fossils. Those indicate extinction events, which are due to major and (relatively) sudden changes in the environment - ice ages, major volcanic eruptions and major impacts from outer space can all be possible causes. Hell, there's an extinction event occurring now that can be at least partially ascribed to humans intervening in the environment and shaping it to fit their needs far beyond what any other animal has done in this regard.
"No you showed me a dog that change a lot, but was still a dog."
...yes, it is, just like how humans are still primates, mammals, eukaryotes, and animals. That's how taxonomy works.
Anyway, first off, what you have provided is a creationist website, not a scientific paper. Do you have any scientific papers discrediting Archaeopteryx?
Second, what about Microraptor, which is a much better evidence of the dinosaur -> bird transition than Archaeopteryx?
'Look I'm tired of hearing this you're only saying the same thing over and over that everyone else has said a billion times in the past "IF this happen then this MIGHT happen."'
Strawman. Science does not say "If X happens Y may happen," it says "given evidence X we should expect to see Y as a result of the explanation for X; this can be tested via procedure ABCD with materials DEFG." The two are very far from being one and the same.
"Also I've already explain that the "fossil record" is false "
Using, again, a creationist site. If your claims are indeed scientific, why have they not been published in scientific journals? Can you give me a scientific paper that shows the fossil record is false? How do you explain the morphological similarities between different fossils that, when arranged in relative chronological order based on the strata the fossils were found in, show a distinct transition from one form to another over time?
You're wrong.
Also, your website there is either not Catholic and not correct, or just not correct, because the fossil record is a reliable resource, and Catholicism's view on evolution is that it does, it fact, happen, and is, in fact, right.
In response to the individual claims, as I came across them:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html -The Cambrian explosion
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html -There's gaps.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB822.html -the tree is disproved
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html -extinct fish found
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html -gap between reptiles and birds
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921.html -has enough to do with the lungfish and platypus to be worth including. The organs don't have to be halfway each thing to transition.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC051_1.html -Neanderthals with rickets
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html -Cro-magnon man
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html -Zuckerman's claim refuted
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#oh5 -She dropped her claim, didn't publicize it
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.html -Piltdown man
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html -Nebraska Man
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html -Java man
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_peking.html -Peking man
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html -Quote mines and reality, or 'more on gaps'
AND as a nail in the coffin, Dr. Robin Bernhoft, author of the article, ANSWERS HIS OWN QUESTIONS IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT SEEM UNBIASED, EVEN ADDRESSING HIMSELF FROM A SECOND PERSON'S POINT OF VIEW IN THE BEGINNING.
If I missed anything, I think the sheer quantity of correction here makes up for it.
Here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html
An explanation of birds descending form dinosaurs. The question is different, but the information applies.
Also, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902_2.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html would like to show you you're wrong.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Take those links, and learn.
If not that, we can look at different ages of the same creature and see differences in the fossil record. That's the UC Berkley link from before.
Using what we know about those birds in London, we could establish a baseline for the new species and old species of the bird, create an artificial environment, and see whether the food is responsible, the environment is responsible, or what. Now, it'd be a loooooooong experiment, but it would be an experiment nonetheless. That eliminates the incontestability theory you've got.
Finally, evolution IS repeatable. With a sizable enough chunk of time and money, you could recreate environmental conditions for certain creatures to observe how they live and die, and track changes therein. It's not impossible, but it's just cheaper and easier to look at how it happened in the past.
Ta-da.