|
Replies: 84
| visibility 1
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1381]
TigerPulse: 83%
Posts: 2089
Joined: 4/23/15
|
Lies, all lies, right Jhop?***
Apr 13, 2016, 3:50 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Lies, all lies, right Jhop?***
Apr 13, 2016, 10:17 AM
|
|
I didn't say that, I just showed you a scientist with a doctorate in molecular and cell biology that said that....
So don't tell me it's fact when there are people much more intelligent than anybody on this board that disputes it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46782]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30702
Joined: 8/11/15
|
HERE WE GO!!!
Apr 13, 2016, 10:18 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Lies, all lies, right Jhop?***
Apr 13, 2016, 10:31 AM
[ in reply to Re: Lies, all lies, right Jhop?*** ] |
|
JHop, you realize that 99% of biologist doctorates disagree with the one that you choose to listen to. If you really care about him being intelligent and educated then why don't you value the opinions of the vast majority?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Lies, all lies, right Jhop?***
Apr 13, 2016, 10:44 AM
|
|
99%?
Citation please....
There's a well known list with over 700 names on it of scientist that are skeptical.
Also, you've stated multiple times that you have no clue how it all started and your only theory on that has been proven absolutely absurd.
So, while I'm not saying that evolution doesn't happen to a certain degree, it is nowhere close to fact that we all came from one common ancestor and that that ancestor formed from non living matter....
What do you have to say about the Cambrian explosion which points to all plant and species being created at one time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Lies, all lies, right Jhop?***
Apr 13, 2016, 11:12 AM
|
|
> 99%?
> Citation please....
> There's a well known list with over 700 names on it of scientist that are skeptical.
If you want to be pedantic, go right ahead but are you really arguing that evolution isn't accepted by the vast majority of scientists?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/creationism-america-survey_n_5434107.html
> Also, you've stated multiple times that you have no clue how it all started and your only theory on that has been proven absolutely absurd.
>So, while I'm not saying that evolution doesn't happen to a certain degree, it is nowhere close to fact that we all came from one common ancestor and that that ancestor formed from non living matter....
Well that's a big difference between you and I, i'm willing to admit when I'm wrong or when I do not know something. We currently do not know how life formed for non-living matter. But that has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. I'm really not sure what your confusion is there?
> So, while I'm not saying that evolution doesn't happen to a certain degree, it is nowhere close to fact that we all came from one common ancestor and that that ancestor formed from non living matter....
Yes, it in fact a fact. It's literally written in our DNA. We are related to every other life form that we have found. From trees to insects to other primates we share a distant common ancestor. This is well supported by DNA sequencing and the fossil record.
> What do you have to say about the Cambrian explosion which points to all plant and species being created at one time?
That's not what the Cambrian explosion is... It is not an event where "all plants and species were created at one time". Not sure where you got that information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47093
Joined: 3/18/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [32958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 53106
Joined: 3/5/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Cambrian Explosion?
Apr 13, 2016, 2:03 PM
|
|
Some scientist like the many that I've quoted say it actually disproves evolution because all the major animal plans appeared in this period.
Of course evolutionist they write it off as an exception and point to other time periods in evolutionary history that this occurred but I never see any examples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Cambrian Explosion?
Apr 13, 2016, 2:39 PM
|
|
> Some scientist like the many that I've quoted say it actually disproves evolution because all the major animal plans appeared in this period.
But the Cambrian Explosion took place over millions of years... How does that do anything but support evolution?
> Of course evolutionist they write it off as an exception and point to other time periods in evolutionary history that this occurred but I never see any examples.
I don't even know what you are saying here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Cambrian Explosion?
Apr 13, 2016, 3:59 PM
|
|
The Cambrian explosion took place over supposedly 20 million years, which is much shorter than evolution takes yet all the major animal groups are present.
This is a huge black eye for the theory that everything evolved from one species.
Evolutionist claim there are other periods in evolutionary history where you see this rapid pace of evolution but admit it raises a lot of questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Cambrian Explosion?
Apr 13, 2016, 4:03 PM
|
|
> The Cambrian explosion took place over supposedly 20 million years, which is much shorter than evolution takes yet all the major animal groups are present.
>This is a huge black eye for the theory that everything evolved from one species.
>Evolutionist claim there are other periods in evolutionary history where you see this rapid pace of evolution but admit it raises a lot of questions.
I'm not sure you quite understand what the Cambrian Explosion is. First of all, evolution can absolutely happen in 20 million years. We humans have only existed in present form for the last ~200,000 years.
It was a period of time where evolution happened at a relatively rapid pace and again, this is all completely in line with and discovered by evolutionary biologist.
I think you need to read up a bit more before trying to use it as evidence against evolution because you aren't making sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Cambrian Explosion?
Apr 13, 2016, 4:13 PM
|
|
It appears you are once again the one that doesn't know what he's talking about....I'm actually a bit shocked. The way you talk you sound like an expert on this subject but it's clear you are far from it.
"The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance in the fossil record of most major animal body plans about 543 million years ago. The new fossils appear in an interval of 20 million years or less. On evolutionary time scales, 20 million years is a rapid burst that appears to be inconsistent with the gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, rapid changes like this appear at other times in the fossil record, often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of interesting and important research questions."
http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/cambrian-explosion
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47093
Joined: 3/18/07
|
I often wonder if you're trolling, or just that stupid.
Apr 13, 2016, 4:18 PM
|
|
Appears we're leaning towards trolling, as you cut and paste the abstract, leaving the last sentence off, which reads:
It does not, however, challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution.
lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: I often wonder if you're trolling, or just that stupid.
Apr 13, 2016, 4:22 PM
|
|
The entire article attempts to spin this...
You can read that for yourself without me copying and pasting.
I'm just educating him on what the Cambrian Explosion was and that in fact it does present challenges to evolution.
There are plenty of scientist that will tell you it disproves evolution...would you like me to post some of those?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47093
Joined: 3/18/07
|
It doesn't attempt, it successfully explains it.
Apr 13, 2016, 4:40 PM
|
|
It doesn't present challenges to evolution at all, maybe you should read the article.
It is an interesting time period and one that many scientists are researching further.
And as it has always been said, if one piece, that's it, just one piece of evidence that can disprove evolution is discovered, then that person will win a Nobel.
Are you trolling or are you genuinely that stupid to realize that all your "creationist" articles are religious zealots not following any semblance of scientific method?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47093
Joined: 3/18/07
|
You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 13, 2016, 4:37 PM
|
|
He doesn't even believe life has existed for more than 8,000 years, so for him to attempt to disprove something that was 500 million years ago over a course of 20 million years is pretty laughable.
The first article you posted was actually a good one, you just trolled by leaving out the truthful conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 13, 2016, 4:45 PM
|
|
Sorry but you lack the credentials to belittle articles like this.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81617]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47093
Joined: 3/18/07
|
Do I now?
Apr 13, 2016, 4:46 PM
|
|
lol
Troll harder buddy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Do I now?
Apr 13, 2016, 4:49 PM
|
|
Trolls don't post sources to back up their claims....
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 13, 2016, 4:50 PM
|
|
Never have...
I just point to the obvious lack of information especially the pathetically incomplete fossil record.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 13, 2016, 5:41 PM
|
|
Could be worse, could be about talking snakes, "camels" in the book of Exodus, and a flood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 13, 2016, 5:48 PM
[ in reply to Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article? ] |
|
I thought it was wrong to lie?
Have you ever been to a natural history museum? I suggest you do so sometime, you might learn a thing or two.
Although you might walk away disappointed as the snakes don't talk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 13, 2016, 5:53 PM
|
|
Yea I saw the pictures of the "reconstructions" that are on display...
Theyre nothing close to the fragments of remains that they've actually found....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 13, 2016, 6:43 PM
|
|
You believe in talking snakes bro, do you have evidence for those?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 13, 2016, 8:11 PM
|
|
You can believe what you want....
That's not what this is about. I'm not trying to convince you to believe in God, only he can do that.
I'm just saying that evolution is not "fact".
If it was there wouldn't be so many people that dispute it.
In all honesty I expected to find much more evidence for it when I started looking but it's quite underwhelming....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 13, 2016, 8:17 PM
|
|
> You can believe what you want....
> That's not what this is about. I'm not trying to convince you to believe in God, only he can do that.
> I'm just saying that evolution is not "fact".
Ditto; believe what you want but it is absolutely fact. Just as much as the earth is round. The evidence couldn't be less equivocal.
> If it was there wouldn't be so many people that dispute it.
Do you every try applying your logic to your own beliefs? Example:
> If it was there wouldn't be so many people that dispute it.
I mean... most people in the world dispute Christianity. How could it be fact if so many people dispute it? Islam has a lot of followers; must be something to that right?
> In all honesty I expected to find much more evidence for it when I started looking but it's quite underwhelming....
Ok... so what do you find so "overwhelming" about the bible then? I would wager that you've never seen any verifiable evidence of God yourself.
You stated yourself that you don't really understand evolution. I'd also wager that you've spent very little time actually considering the evidence. You sound a lot like me just a few years ago. I didn't really know something that believers did, but boy did I want them to be wrong.
I know how that goes so I don't really blame you but this is a religion forum so I'll call you out here for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 13, 2016, 8:33 PM
|
|
If you were where I am now you'd never be where you are now.
The evidence you are presenting means nothing to me. I'm not looking at it with a closed mind because I don't care what it says. I knew there would be some evidence for it but honestly it is nowhere near what I thought it'd be. I actually thought it might challenge my faith.
Comparing the skepticism towards the belief in God to the skepticism towards evolution isn't logical because God can never be proven to exist. I know he exists because he's showed himself to me through Jesus, and that's the only way to to believe.
Evolution can be proven true, but it's obvious that it hasn't. You won't find articles that say the sky isn't blue or the sun sets in the east but you'll find plenty that dispute that mankind evolved from a common ancestor with every other species.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 13, 2016, 8:51 PM
|
|
> If you were where I am now you'd never be where you are now.
Ah, the ole no true scotsman fallacy eh?
> The evidence you are presenting means nothing to me. I'm not looking at it with a closed mind because I don't care what it says. I knew there would be some evidence for it but honestly it is nowhere near what I thought it'd be. I actually thought it might challenge my faith.
Clearly; this is not surprising at all. You are not interested in looking at the evidence, only backing up beliefs you already hold. You are not stupid, but you are clearly not critically analyzing your beliefs or the evidence for evolution. You do not arrive at religion through logical thinking.
> Comparing the skepticism towards the belief in God to the skepticism towards evolution isn't logical because God can never be proven to exist. I know he exists because he's showed himself to me through Jesus, and that's the only way to to believe.
He can't be proven to exist yet he showed himself to you? A bit of an oxymoron no? I don't doubt you had some sort of experience, I had many myself but I doubt they were supernatural.
> Evolution can be proven true, but it's obvious that it hasn't.
Actually, no it can't be "proven" true. Only place you will see proofs are mathematics. Evolution is however falsifiable and yet that has never happened.
> You won't find articles that say the sky isn't blue or the sun sets in the east but you'll find plenty that dispute that mankind evolved from a common ancestor with every other species.
I wouldn't be so sure of that... there are still "flat-earthers" and other such nonsense. The only disputes you see against evolution are from religious people. Evolution is not disputed within the scientific community. Sure, there are disputes over certain aspects of it but it is a fact that we share a common ancestor with all other living plants and animals and evolved over time. We did not simply "appear" at any given time in history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 14, 2016, 6:40 AM
|
|
"Flat earthers"
Nice comparison bro. There are satellites orbiting the earth that show us the earth is round.
Is there a list with over 700 scientist on it that are skeptical of this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 14, 2016, 8:13 AM
|
|
>"Flat earthers"
>Nice comparison bro. There are satellites orbiting the earth that show us the earth is round.
And we have about 100 years of research backing up evolution.... did you know it's one of if not the most supported scientific theory?
> Is there a list with over 700 scientist on it that are skeptical of this?
And most people are skeptical of christianity; what's your point?
We can both use the appeal to authority fallacy all day long. At the end of the day the evidence has to speak for itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 14, 2016, 10:23 AM
|
|
And 100 years of lies....
That's a FACT!
Christianity can't be proven to be correct....evolution could but it obviously haven't or hundreds of scientist wouldn't dispute. Is there a list of scientist that dispute that earth is round?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 14, 2016, 10:27 AM
|
|
You keep using the word "fact", in the words of the princess bride, I don't think it means what you think it does.
> Christianity can't be proven to be correct....evolution could but it obviously haven't or hundreds of scientist wouldn't dispute. Is there a list of scientist that dispute that earth is round?
Again, no evolution can't be "proven" to be true. That is not how science works. Evolution is however falsifiable and yet it never has been.
Let me say it again because you don't seem to understand. Science doesn't prove anything.
> Christianity can't be proven to be correct....evolution could but it obviously haven't or hundreds of scientist wouldn't dispute. Is there a list of scientist that dispute that earth is round?
I don't know why you are so hung up on the fact that some non-scientific people dispute evolution. Who cares? They aren't submitting any peer-reviewed publications that falsify evolution. You know what that is? It's because they can't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 14, 2016, 11:03 AM
|
|
It's a fact that for over 100 years there were fake drawings in textbooks supporting evolution. Period.
Non scientific people?
There is a list of over 700 scientist that are skeptical of evolution....
Just give it up, you're all over the place.
A few posts ago you claimed evolution was "absolute fact", now you're claiming it can't even be proven to be true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 14, 2016, 11:33 AM
|
|
> It's a fact that for over 100 years there were fake drawings in textbooks supporting evolution. Period.
One instance of fraudulence doesn't negate the rest of the data. Make sense?
> Non scientific people?
> There is a list of over 700 scientist that are skeptical of evolution....
Let's see the peer reviewed work? Again, if it's not peer reviewed then anyone could write whatever they want.
>Just give it up, you're all over the place.
>A few posts ago you claimed evolution was "absolute fact", now you're claiming it can't even be proven to be true.
Um... no you just don't seem to understand. Evolution is absolutely a fact, it's just not a fact by being proven, it's a fact by not being falsifiable. See the difference?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
Please read up on falsifiability and the scientific process. It doesn't prove anything, that's not how it works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 14, 2016, 11:44 AM
|
|
Except that it wasn't just one instance....it was printed over and over and still is today.
Do you realize that a creationist paper must be approved by evolutionist to pass peer review? What's the odds of that happening?
I've never heard someone say a "fact" can't be proven true, but that's what your argument has come to and it speaks volumes.
By that same token I guess the existence of God is fact since you can't disprove it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 14, 2016, 11:55 AM
|
|
Do you really believe out of literally THOUSANDS of scientists, not one of them would take a hard long look at a creationist paper if it were accurate?
That would be a HUGE conspiracy. Y'all should get the media involved in this conspiracy/cover-up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article?
Apr 14, 2016, 11:56 AM
[ in reply to Re: You realize the paradox of that idiot writing the article? ] |
|
> Except that it wasn't just one instance....it was printed over and over and still is today.
Again, it's one instance, it doesn't negate all of evolution. Just as one bad preacher doesn't negate all of christianity.
> Do you realize that a creationist paper must be approved by evolutionist to pass peer review? What's the odds of that happening?
100% if the paper was scientifically accurate. If you falsified evolution you would win a nobel prize.
The problem isn't evolutionist vs creationist. It's science vs pseudo-science.
> I've never heard someone say a "fact" can't be proven true, but that's what your argument has come to and it speaks volumes.
This is a common misunderstanding. You can't just use the colloquial versions of the words. Just like a scientific theory is not at all the same as the way we use it colloquially.
Please look up how the scientific process works so we can speak on the same level. Facts are facts in science because they have been supported by evidence. When there is enough evidence then the probability that something is true is very high and that is the best we can do.
For example, we have TONS of evidence saying that the earth is round. However, we have not "proven" it to be true, we just know that is extremely extremely likely to be round given the evidence. There is still some small possibility that its wrong (e.g. something crazy like it being an illusion of some sort but it's really flat).
Just because there is the infinitesimally small probability that it's wrong though, should we entertain that? No, of course not. It's the EXACT same situation with evolution. It has been backed up with evidence well beyond any reasonable doubt so there is no reason to entertain the idea that it's false anymore.
> By that same token I guess the existence of God is fact since you can't disprove it.
No... that is absolutely not what I am saying. Just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean it's true. Otherwise any other god would could be said to exist.
Now, if you could back up the existence of God in the same way evolution is backed up then yes it would also be a fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Cambrian Explosion?
Apr 13, 2016, 5:46 PM
[ in reply to Re: Cambrian Explosion? ] |
|
You are really confusing.
The Cambrian Explosion took place over 20 MM, please in detail explain how that debunks evolution?
> The way you talk you sound like an expert on this subject but it's clear you are far from it.
I never said I was an expert on the subject, I'm just not a total moron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Cambrian Explosion?
Apr 13, 2016, 6:01 PM
|
|
Once again straight from the article....
"On evolutionary time scales, 20 million years is a rapid burst that appears to be inconsistent with the gradual pace of evolutionary change. "
This is "explained" by claiming that there are other periods of rapid bursts of evolutionary change, however those periods aren't given.
READ THE ARTICLE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Cambrian Explosion?
Apr 13, 2016, 6:45 PM
|
|
Jhop, here let me help you read the article:
"The “Cambrian Explosion” refers to the appearance in the fossil record of most major animal body plans about 543 million years ago. The new fossils appear in an interval of 20 million years or less. On evolutionary time scales, 20 million years is a rapid burst that appears to be inconsistent with the gradual pace of evolutionary change. However, rapid changes like this appear at other times in the fossil record, often following times of major extinction. The Cambrian Explosion does present a number of interesting and important research questions. It does not, however, challenge the fundamental correctness of the central thesis of evolution."
Do you know what "appears" means?
Also, check out that last emboldened statement. Did you even read the article before posting?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Cambrian Explosion?
Apr 13, 2016, 8:05 PM
|
|
Read the whole thing and I've already stated that the article was posted with the intent of educating YOU on the Cambrian Explosion.
So now that you know what it is can you explain why 550 million years ago all the major animal groups appear fully formed and since then have not evolved into another species?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Cambrian Explosion?
Apr 13, 2016, 8:21 PM
|
|
Can you be specific about what you mean by "appear fully formed". The cambrian explosion does not state that most animals "just appeared". In fact, it states that animals "rapidly evolved" during this time.
I'm still really confused why you think the Cambrian explosion refutes evolution in any way? You know this is taught in evolutionary biology right? It's not like some secret...
> since then have not evolved into another species?
Also, not sure where you got this idea. Countless species have evolved since the Cambrian explosion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Cambrian Explosion?
Apr 13, 2016, 8:37 PM
|
|
Appear in the context of the evolutionary scale. 20 million years is a blip in time.
You keep deflecting from the issue at hand.
Every major animal group was formed within a 20 million year time frame 550 million years ago......
Since then no new major animal groups have formed.
Are you with me?
How is this possible?
I'll tell you what the evolution theory is for you. It's that the Cambrian Explosion followed a period of mass extinction and that there are other examples of this rapid burst of evolution in the fossil record.
Where are these other examples?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Cambrian Explosion?
Apr 13, 2016, 8:54 PM
|
|
> Appear in the context of the evolutionary scale. 20 million years is a blip in time.
> You keep deflecting from the issue at hand.
> Every major animal group was formed within a 20 million year time frame 550 million years ago......
> Since then no new major animal groups have formed.
How am I deflecting? You are saying that animals evolved quickly in this 20 million year window and yet that refutes evolution? Seriously, help me out here?
> Since then no new major animal groups have formed.
Source? because, um well... you and I have evolved since then...
> Are you with me? How is this possible?
No I am not; it's because you are literally saying nonsense. Modern humans weren't even around 1 million years ago let alone 550 million years ago. Countless countless species have evolved since then. So no I am not with you at all.
> I'll tell you what the evolution theory is for you. It's that the Cambrian Explosion followed a period of mass extinction and that there are other examples of this rapid burst of evolution in the fossil record.
> Where are these other examples?
Ah... wait a minute... are you trying to insinuate that this mass extinction was say... a world wide flood?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: Lies, all lies, right Jhop?***
Apr 13, 2016, 11:22 AM
[ in reply to Re: Lies, all lies, right Jhop?*** ] |
|
Thankful my BS Physics degree says I'm pretty dang smart. 
At least when I graduated from CofC, we won't too dumb but times have changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: Lies, all lies, right Jhop?***
Apr 13, 2016, 11:25 AM
|
|
I responded to the wrong person. Maybe I'm not that smart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111311]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73652
Joined: 9/10/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [32958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 53106
Joined: 3/5/02
|
That's just silly.
Apr 13, 2016, 11:33 AM
|
|
Of course the water was salty. God's tears for having to destroy so much...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111311]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73652
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: That's just silly.
Apr 13, 2016, 11:50 AM
|
|
how in the world did the loch ness monster survive in salt water? You are not going to convince me noah had two of those on his boat are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [32958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 53106
Joined: 3/5/02
|
Nessie was God's gift to Alba after the flood.***
Apr 13, 2016, 12:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [19919]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 7798
Joined: 10/12/08
|
Those aren't fossils.
Apr 13, 2016, 12:29 PM
|
|
Those are cartoons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 2:31 PM
|
|
Have you actually looked at the "ape to human" transitional fossils?
A handful of examples and the majority of them are only fragments of a complete skeleton....
Here's a pic of the remains from "Lucy"....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 2:33 PM
|
|
And here's the "reconstructed face"....
Now tell me how you get that face out of nothing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1381]
TigerPulse: 83%
Posts: 2089
Joined: 4/23/15
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 3:51 PM
|
|
JHop, you stated clearly where you stand in another thread. and I paraphrase " I don't care if they find a half monkey, half modern man, i still wouldn't change my beliefs. I understand thats what A lot of people thing, when they've convinced themselves that they already know the truth, and seem to gloss over any evidence that says otherwise. Thats 1 major difference between Christy folks and agnostics like myself. I will say clearly that given some proof i'll believe in god...not some stories, or an ancient book or heresay, but some actual proof. Hardcore believers like yourself take the bible as the unquestioned truth.
I actually do know some Christy people that do believe in Evolution. They just now say that it was god's plan all along. This is just folding science into their religious beliefs....a way of moving the goal posts as more and more science come available. Awhile back few Christians believed in evolution, but many are changing their thoughts, like the Vatican, than now accepts the theory of evolution....some never will, holding on the Genesis with all their might
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 4:09 PM
|
|
I can tell you this, in my short time reading on this forum my skepticism of evolution has only increased....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 5:44 PM
|
|
Which coincidentally is inversely proportional to your critical thinking skills... hmm..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 2:41 PM
[ in reply to Re: Transitional Fossils ] |
|
And? What's wrong with artistic renderings?
Again, you are cherry picking. Why aren't you mentioning the plethora of other fossils that are more complete?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 4:08 PM
|
|
I'm talking about ape to human transitional fossils and there are very few and they are very incomplete.
Artistic rendering? Lol....
I could render anything I wanted to from a few bone fragments....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 5:43 PM
|
|
> I'm talking about ape to human transitional fossils and there are very few and they are very incomplete.
First off all, that statement is not true but even if it were we have DNA evidence that shows we share a common ancestor with other primates. I've already shown you that we have a fused chromosome that is very compelling evidence for evolution. Your rebuttal to that was basically "maybe god just made it look that way".
> Artistic rendering? Lol....
> I could render anything I wanted to from a few bone fragments....
The artistic renderings are for visualizations, they are not the science behind evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13605]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12896
Joined: 8/10/13
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 5:47 PM
|
|
Dareal, ever watched any of the crime shows with artist renderings? It's amazing how accurate science is.
Find a body that is badly decomposed or actually missing most of the face/head but science can still come up with pretty accurate drawings of what that person would have looked like.
Many cases have been solved because of artist renderings. LOL
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111311]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73652
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 5:45 PM
[ in reply to Re: Transitional Fossils ] |
|
these complete skulls must not count.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 5:49 PM
|
|
Couldn't those just be chicken bones left by ancient people?
^^^ real statement I heard from a girl in school.
Seriously ###.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111311]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73652
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 5:50 PM
|
|
they look like artistic representations to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 5:53 PM
|
|
WHERE ARE THE FOSSILS BETWEEN THOSE!? THOSE DON'T COUNT AS TRANSITIONAL!
I'm not sure what creationist think a transitional fossil would look like? Literally every fossil that produced offspring is a transitional fossil...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 6:12 PM
|
|
They're literally looking for Ray Comfort's crocoduck. Of course, if they ever did find their idea of a transitional fossil, it would disprove the theory of natural selection outright.
Whenever you show them an actual transitional fossil, people like Jhop just exclaim "Look, now there are two gaps, where there used to be just one!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 6:47 PM
|
|
Obviously God made a bunch of primates that just appear to have transitioned into modern day humans.
Why would God create anything that remotely resembled a human? Wouldn't that avoid this type of confusion?
Oh, my bad, JHop doesn't allow legitimate thought provoking questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 8:07 PM
|
|
That would be a good question if we actually had more than a handful of fragmented remains that were "rendered" into these early primates that we supposedly evolved from.
If there is one show me an example of full skeletal remains in transitional form between ape and human...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 8:20 PM
|
|
"Almost fully complete"
The article actually says it's only 40% complete.
Even if it was how does the discovery of a 5'3", 100 pound 9 year old prove anything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 8:23 PM
|
|
Are you looking for a single fossil of evidence that proves all of evolution or something? This is just one of the countless pieces of evidence that support evolution.
You know what would disprove evolution? A rabbit in the precambrian layer. Something like that has never been found. Older layers always have less complex lifeforms and younger ones have more complex life.
It's actually incredibly straightforward and simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 8:35 PM
[ in reply to Re: Transitional Fossils ] |
|
You understand that this is a 1.6 million year old fossil? Do you expect to find a skeleton that old that looks like you just dug it up from the cemetery?
Even from just 40% complete, it says that we can verify what it looks like due to symmetry. Seriously, you're either totally brain-dead or a troll. Which is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 8:42 PM
|
|
"We can verify what it looks like through symmetry"
Lol.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 8:44 PM
|
|
Are you expecting it to have an arm on one side and a wing on the other?
Stop being obtuse and admit when you're wrong, liar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 8:36 PM
|
|
He won't answer that question. I still doubt he finished high school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4995]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 8298
Joined: 10/8/08
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 8:39 PM
[ in reply to Re: Transitional Fossils ] |
|
Yea bro ill give you those 10 or 12 examples.....
There should be millions.
I still want to know though how a 5'3, 100 pound 9 year old is an example of evolution.
There are millions of those running around the earth as we speak....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4747]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 6973
Joined: 1/24/07
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 8:45 PM
|
|
The skull of the skeleton I posted is completely different from either a modern human or any other ape. Explain that, liar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Transitional Fossils
Apr 13, 2016, 8:57 PM
[ in reply to Re: Transitional Fossils ] |
|
You literally believe in talking snakes yet you are poking fun at an ancient pre-human fossil?
Is this even real life? What year is it?
Dude... like... thousands of scientist spent countless hours researching and verifying evolution. But like, that's dumb. My pastor said angels are actually real...
yeah...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 84
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
