Thread: middle east again...

"not. There was a woman who supposably visited Darwin on his deathbed and some things she said about what he was wearing and what his room was like, made people believe that what she said could be true. However, there are a few other things about what she stated that were probably not true as there is no supportive evidence. The issue is a mystery..... "

Darwin was a Christian, there is no debate on this point (there is no debate about any of this, by people with an education, only people who have not studied evolution in any depth debate it, the rest of the world looks on in wonder in much the same way they do the flat Earthers).

"Everything, or so I had thought. Has the theory of the big bang been disproved recently? "

No..... but the big bang has nothing to do with evolution. (and the way I read your posts it seems as if you think, the Earth was sitting there then the big bang came along, causing an environmental change which resulted in life.......... eerrrrrm....)

"Has not been updated since 1997. Much has been discoverd since then. "

LOL, yea, like even MORE transitional fossils, the ones that have been discovered have not been undiscovered!

"During the debate, the most abrasive evolutionist, Prof. Steve Jones, a geneticist at the University College of London, declared that there are a lot of "stupid people" in America who do not believe in evolution, and then quickly added that this applied to Australians as well, a clear dig at Australian guest Ken Ham! So much for British civility! He also declared that he despised people--meaning creationists--who tell "lies to children." "

Yes, he doesn't like creationists telling lies, to children, and he cannot believe the ignorance displayed by people coming from a 1st world country, that "should" have had a decent education, I too find it astonishing that clearly many of the people in this very thread were not taught or did not understand event the most basic of biological principles.

"This same evolutionist, when asked by Ken for specific evidence for evolution, replied: "salmon speciation" in America. Ken quickly pointed out that the salmon ten years later are still salmon"

Which completely missed the point, he asked for instance of species evolution and he was provided with one, what exactly is he expecting? A species of salmon's phenotypic properties completely changing in 20 years!? HELLO evolution takes time.

"and that creationists believe in speciation anyway because no new genetic information was added to the new salmon species, it would remain a salmon! So much for Prof. Jones's academic brilliance!> "

I think what you mean to say is OMG how ignorant Ken Ham, "no genetic information was added to the salmon species" er..... WRONG (see links at the bottom of the post) What is a salmon, is it a species? Do you know? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Salmon does NOT refer to a species, it is a higher taxa, the SPECIES changed, of COURSE the two new species are still in the same Taxa! They were the SAME species only 20 years ago! (see links at the bottom of post)

IF you want a break down of Hams IDIOCY, go here:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/ham_evidence.htm

and here:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/h...s_of_years.htm

and here:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/h..._practical.htm

and here:

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/ham_bible.htm


and i notice you do not respond to any of the points i made in my post to you.... go figure.

@dawn, the operative word was telescopic. no mention of physical time travel.

& about the future: if one can see into the past, it only stands to reason the future involves a similar process.

"& about the future: if one can see into the past, it only stands to reason the future involves a similar process. "

Uh.... no, it does not.

You are looking at the "past" right now, you see the monitor in front of you as it was a few fempto-seconds ago. You cannot look at light coming from objects in the future because that light does not exist in the present, you can look at light that has come from "objects in the past" (though thinking of it this way, is somewhat misleading) because that light DOES exist in the present.

you cannot say that with 1oo% certaintly. none of it. nothing is impossible...& there are no absolutes. what happens when the image of a distant object intersects with the image of another distant object during it's travel across space&time? listen bro, don't take this seriously...i just ramble on sometimes about things i haven't much more than imagination for reference on...it's all just talk...science fiction.

Ooh look what I found:

Fyodor states this quote:

"You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type or organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another.... But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. "

By Colin Patterson, well........... :

"Another prominent biologist who has been the victim of creationist misquotes and dishonesty is Dr Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History. In a private letter to creationist Luther Sunderland, who had asked Patterson why no transitional fossils were illustrated in his book, Patterson responded: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument." (Creation Science Foundation, Revised Quote Book, 1990). Since then, creationists in both the US and Australia have widely circulated this quote, contending that Patterson is "admitting that there aren’t any transitional fossils".

This is absurd on the face of it, since Patterson’s book contains several descriptions of different transitional fossils: "In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes." (Patterson, 1978, p. 130)

However, when one researcher wrote to Patterson to ask about the much-repeated quote, Patterson responded with yet another example of creationist selective editing: "The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues ‘... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question.’ " (Lionel Theunissen, "Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites', 1997) Thus, it becomes apparent from the full context that Patterson was referring to the impossibility of establishing direct lines of descent from fossils, a position fully in keeping with his cladistic outlook. Patterson was not saying there were no fossil transitions, and Sunderland’s attempt to claim otherwise can only be viewed as an effort at deception. "

Now i'm going to clarify and address what you will doubt jump on: "Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question"

It's true we don't know, but that doesn't matter AT ALL!

The reason you cannot prove that Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of birds is that Archaeopteryx could have had a "cousin" that was in-fact be the ancestor instead. That doesn't detract from the point, that Archaeopteryx IS a transitional fossil showing quite clearly structures from both reptile and bird, showing evolution in action.

The only way to definitevely prove that Archeopteryx was the ancester for all birds would be to have a fossil of EVERY species between Archaeopteryx and modern birds! Given that only a tiny fraction of animals become fossilised and how far back we are going here, that is highly unlikely.

What matters is that evolutionary theory predicts common ancestry, thus we would conclude that there would be links between the various taxonmic groups, and what do we find in the fossil record? Answer: Links between the various taxonmic groups (of course given the number of fossils compared to the number of species that have ever lived, we would NOT expect to find a great deal of them, and as expected we don't, though that said we DO see quite a few: Archaeopteryx,, the Therapsids, Triadobatrachus, Icthyostega, , Ambulocetus, etc.).

"you cannot say that with 1oo% certaintly"

If you are reffering to the Decartian argument of supreme doubt, then it is true that the ONLY thing you can be 100% certain of is that "thinking is" (the some what updated version of cogito ergo sum) but in reality we face the question do we believe our sensory imput is based on the real world, or is it "faked", most people by verge of the immense improbability of living in a faked world (ala Matrix) believe that our sense's are in-fact based on the real world, given that single conclusion the following is true:

"nothing is impossible...& there are no absolutes"

Plenty of things are impossible, i've already given an example: It is impossible for me to flap my arms so fast I take off.

And of course there are absolutes! The universe has fixed properties, if i drop a ball it accelerates towards the ground at 9.81 ms^-2 that is an absolute, it doesn't change depending on who observes it.

"what happens when the image of a distant object intersects with the image of another distant object during it's travel across space&time"

........ intersects? Nothing whatsoever happens, unless the light from the two images interfere in which case, you get a classic interference pattern. Doesn't help you look into the future though.

"i haven't much more than imagination for reference on...it's all just talk...science fiction"

Fair enough, science fiction is cool, it has given us some cool ideas too, (like satelites), but not everything in science fiction is plausable in reality, not because of technological problems, but because laws of physics get in the way.

you don't actually believe the laws of physics apply to all dimensions, do you? & when one crosses over another...is there an effect in the real world? these are not just images...hurling through space...they are time...time itself...traveling through space...that is my insane theory and i'm sticking to it.

"you don't actually believe the laws of physics apply to all dimensions, do you? "

My dear seditee do you have any idea what a "dimension" actually is? Or are you in-fact talking about other universe's? (which incidently still won't help you look into the future)

"when one crosses over another...is there an effect in the real world"

Crosses over what? A "dimension"!?

"these are not just images...hurling through space...they are time...time itself...traveling through space...that is my insane theory and i'm sticking to it"

....... But you see they are most certainly NOT "time itself", they are just photons.

>>In fact, I believe that evolution, guided or not, is a very reasonable theory concerning the history of life on Earth.

Then it would appear that we're arguing two sides of the same point. The only thing i have claimed as fact, is that organisms will [and do] evolve to survive in their changing enviroments. This evolution can be miniscule or in some cases, quite extreme. The rest can be reasonably projected from what facts exist.

how do we really know? & i suppose i meant universes rather than dimensions...i'm not sure; give me time to think about this...i have to be in the mood; it's getting cloudy...it's so dark...they're calling me back now...i have to go...








alright, i'm back now - i would have to say neither. just a film clip stored in a package of light...with mystical qualitiessss...simply explained...but...freaky none the less.

I want to make a point about the bull trout, but am having trouble finding anything that isn't about fishing or just about salmon. You points will have to remain unanswered and undebated until I have more time.

<Darwin was a Christian, there is no debate on this point (there is no debate about any of this, by people with an education, only people who have not studied evolution in any depth debate it, the rest of the world looks on in wonder in much the same way they do the flat Earthers).>

If it is so, and I would research things more before being totally convinced, then it is but a gain.

<LOL, yea, like even MORE transitional fossils, the ones that have been discovered have not been undiscovered!>

http://www.rae.org/FAQ01.html Check out this site, it has some interesting things about Gould and transitional fossils.

<LOL, the boundary!? And what exactly is "the boundary" to a creationist?? The very reason WHY you say it is "hard to tell them apart" is because at the "boundary" they have structures from both mammals and reptiles, JEEZ i wonder why that could be??>

Platapus lay eggs, but does that mean they are evolving into chickens? Pigeons can give milk, but are they evolving into cows? There are certainly some odd things that go on in the relm of the natural world. The way animals are, how they work, is fascinating. There are odd things, fossils that are found, like fish with both lungs and gills, fish with lizard like feet, small dinasaurs that are featherd. But is this so odd? Is it so new? We all agree that lizards and birds cannot mate. why would'nt a bird evolve into a lizard? Why isn't it the other way around? (These are rhetorical questions). I pose the theory, what if these creatures were always this way? A featherd lizard, fish with feet, etc. What we know and debate has only scratched the surface.

The bounderys of how the world begin are layed out in the bible, we don't believe God created evolution, as some Christians(?) mistakenly try to say. Things don't just happen, this world did not come about by accident, it happend for a reason, everything happens for a reason. We are not mistakes. How much farther can people go? People are not evolving into something better, we are what we are and we will always be the same, until the end of time.



Genesis chapter one and two that contradict, or is it Genisis and Exodus?



I can only make so many points and answer so many questions, researching things takes a rather long time. I answer the ones that I find answers to, the topics are often quite complex and go off on so many dizzy, undecided, tangents, that have nothing to do with the question, that I run out of research time.

Then it would appear that we're arguing two sides of the same point. The only thing i have claimed as fact, is that organisms will [and do] evolve to survive in their changing enviroments. This evolution can be miniscule or in some cases, quite extreme. The rest can be reasonably projected from what facts exist.

A theory can be reasonably projected to some extent, but it should be treated as a hypothesis, not a fact beyond any doubt, as it is seen by almost all biologists/paleontologists.

>>Platapus lay eggs, but does that mean they are evolving into chickens?
They are more like snake eggs (leathery) and the only other Monotreme, the Echidna also lays eggs. It is an adaptation to the conditions here. Kangaroos can delay the fertilized ovums transition to the womb for up to two years waiting for better (non drought) conditions.

>>why would'nt a bird evolve into a lizard?
Look at the complexity of their hearts to see evolutuion in action, specifically the number of chambers. Look at up to 2 week old embryos. To me they a good proof all life came from similar beginings, not the omnipotent immagination of a god.

You are looking at it from the wrong side.
It shows that they have COME from the other families, still retaining vestiges of them.

>>Things don't just happen, this world did not come about by accident, it happend for a reason, everything happens for a reason.

Your only proof of that is your faith in god and some book. You are falling into 'Heisenberg's Uncertanty' (closer you get to something harder it is to measure).

PS Human evolution has not stopped. Look at surveys of Japannese height or heart disease. The influences have changed where we are going and at what speed but we are moving.