Evolution?

[Blake]

Blake you are stirring up a hornet's nest of unimaginably epic magnitude by calling out phenomanul.
This dude will go on for thirty pages about how the theory is not complete therefore god exists. And how he dropped knowledge on park rangers in the grand canyon about rock formation and .

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...ight=evolution

we didn't quite go for 30 pages, but the thread itself went 28.

[Blake]

If this is the Blake I know (the one who used to discuss Rasho vs Nazr), then 30 pages would be a piece of cake for him.

yup matias(?).

just fyi, for what it's worth, when I see "MB" I think mombear and I get a shiver down my spine.

I can do 30 pages of ownage before breakfast. I also miss watching coyotefan go nuclear every time I would say Nazr>Rasho. That was freakin awesome stuff.

[spursncowboys]

Evolution is not a belief. Do we all have to believe in mathematics now, too?

Evolution is real, its measurable, its do ented.

The only doubt assigned to evolution is the process of how all life on earth got where it is today. That we humans have a common ancestor with other primates, etc.

Its a bold theory, and so far, the only one supported with evidence, but no conclusion.

Evolution isn't real or measurable. You are thinking of adaptation.

[Blake]

Evolution isn't real or measurable. You are thinking of adaptation.

in your opinion, how did humans come to be?

[MB20]

yup matias(?).

just fyi, for what it's worth, when I see "MB" I think mombear and I get a shiver down my spine.

I can do 30 pages of ownage before breakfast. I also miss watching coyotefan go nuclear every time I would say Nazr>Rasho. That was freakin awesome stuff.

Yup. Matias here.
Those coyotefan vs blake fights were epìc.

[The Power Hour.]

[Phenomanul]

Are you suggesting it disconfirms it? Or do you have a better theory?

I'm flat out stating that evidence for micro-evoluionary processes don't prove the validity of macro-evolution....

Not now... Not ever...

The existence of genetic recombinations and highly rare beneficial point mutations doesn't allow anyone to assume that our biological history was driven by this process. For that assumption to hold water you would need quantifiable proof of the critical genetic shifts that created the major taxonomic branches... But none of that exists...

I don't care that you still believe in Macro-Evolution. I have a problem with you and others arguing that these assumptions are what cons ute the 'hard science' behind Macro-Evolution.

I don't care what you call it, really. Do you think the theory of electro-magnetism isn't "hard science?" There's a lot we don't know there, too -- and yet the theory we have is useful, and grows more complete by the day.

Actually, the theory of electromagnetism is pretty sound... it is fully testable, quantifiable, and fully subjectable to any number of experiments against any number of variables. Extremely reliable empirical equations have been developed by the data (Maxwell, Faraday equations... etc...).

The impact of subatomic physics on the bearing of how those equations work (in a practical sense) is minimal, only the illusive equation for earth's electromagnetic dynamo is yet to be derrived... even then... to label electromagnetism as anything but 'hard-science' for the sake of your analogy would be rather disingenuous...

LOL @ wanting to repeat "macro-evolution" in order to prove it.

Are you waving your 'magic time' wand? LOL at trying to hide hole-riddled assumptions behind the pretense of billions of 'data-erasing' years... Where's the scientific data for all (or any) of the connections you blindly take as valid?? Those standards hardly qualify as 'hard-science' and you know it.

You do realize we don't need the genomes of missing links in order to help chart the evolution of species. That WAS my point. PS, a little hint: science at the theoretical level IS observational. And incomplete. And fallible. But as things stand, there is no better model, and there is no reason not to assume your "macro-evolution" took place in a different way than bacterial evolution does.

That is why we don't see eye-to-eye....

Oddly enough, when Christian scientists draw conclusions from observations the critics are quick to label that dynamic as "pseudoscience"... When the scientific community uses a fossilized hip bone as the sole basis for defining the transition from one genus to another, such events largely pass by unnoticed... A mountain-sized stack of such assumptions does not make the macro-evolutionary claim any more valid. Just like all the politicians and 'scientists' mounting heaps and heaps of false assumptions in support of anthropomorphic climate change doesn't make their claim any more true.

Err... why? If they evolved from, say, bacteria, and we did, too -- it would follow that we share genetic information.

A plausible conclusion is not always the correct one.

But you missed my point... We have genetic samples from dinosaur bones (not even fully fossilized) that are purported to be over 70 million years old. Genetic decay cannot be suppressed for that extent of time... what gives?

For that matter we have an entire dead forest located just 745 miles from the north pole (on a Canadian island), where no such forest should exist. Ancient trees that stood over 150 ft tall... and can still be chopped up to firewood (i.e. it is not petrified ). Radioactive dating reveals them to be over millions of years old... how is that even possible?

So a supposition from over a century ago was disproven, therefore baby goes with bathwater and the theory is now implausible?

That's not what I said.

You make it sound like my objections to Macro-Evolution rely solely on that incongruency... My objections are based on a heap of such incongruncies.... Of course it's pretty funny to hear scientists now try and rationalize the coelacanth's choice habitat by suggesting that the ability to walk began under water... Oddly enough, all of the biological systems, and structural differences that would be required to make that jump become less attenable the moment you assume that... (the changes to the fish's lungs, changes to their eyes, the shifts to sturdier endoskeletal structures, and the enlargement of their heart, among other changes would have to occur almost simultaneously...)

Have I said you make farcically unrealistic demands of science already?

Anyway, you believe as you will -- I've got to get back to work.

We have different standards apparently.

[Blake]

I'm flat out stating that evidence for micro-evoluionary processes don't prove the validity of macro-evolution....

Not now... Not ever...

The existence of genetic recombinations and highly rare beneficial point mutations doesn't allow anyone to assume that our biological history was driven by this process. For that assumption to hold water you would need quantifiable proof of the critical genetic shifts that created the major taxonomic branches... But none of that exists...

so what do you think the correct theory of how humans arrived is and how exactly have you validated your theory?

[Blake]

great video of super creationist Kent Hovind getting owned, even if he doesn't realize it himself.

btw,

Since November 2006 Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence in the Federal Correctional Ins ution, Edgefield in Edgefield, South Carolina, after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including twelve tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents and forty-five counts of structuring cash transactions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

great guy

[tlongII]

But you missed my point... We have genetic samples from dinosaur bones (not even fully fossilized) that are purported to be over 70 million years old. Genetic decay cannot be suppressed for that extent of time... what gives?

For that matter we have an entire dead forest located just 745 miles from the north pole (on a Canadian island), where no such forest should exist. Ancient trees over 150 ft tall... that can still be chopped up to firewood (i.e. it is not petrified ). Radioactive dating reveals them to be over millions of years old... how is that even possible?

You might want to give your sources on this stuff because I believe you're talking out of your ass now. Either that or the source is talking out of its ass.

[MiamiHeat]

I think it's funny how people blindly accept a FAITH argument like evolution, but dismiss the Lord Almighty God.

[Blake]

I think it's funny how people blindly accept a FAITH argument like evolution, but dismiss the Lord Almighty God.

I think it's funny how you think you are funny

[boutons_deux]

"dismiss the Lord Almighty God"

straw man.

but let's see your proof, hard evidence, not some Augustinian word games, that He exists?

[Phenomanul]

You might want to give your sources on this stuff because I believe you're talking out of your ass now. Either that or the source is talking out of its ass.

Ask blake to google that for you... he's good at it.

[Stringer_Bell]

As far as I know remains or evidence of this common ancestor have yet to be found.

Now I'll let the more knowledgeable poster correct me.

I think you're referring to the "missing link." I think it's ing hilarious we have found all these random and rare ass fossils, but we can't even find the damn thing we came from. Su ious if you ask me!

Maybe they don't want us to know we evolved from some super-intelligent kind of jellyfish. Also, dinosaurs did not exist (source: Holy Bible).

[tlongII]

Ask blake to google that for you... he's good at it.

I stand corrected. They did discover soft tissue in a 70 million year old fossil. Amazing!

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar.../sci-tyranno25

[DarkReign]

These threads are still good for a laugh.

Only in America does this conversation even have the slightest relevance. While the rest of the world charges forward.

[I. Hustle]

These threads are still good for a laugh.

Only in America does this conversation even have the slightest relevance. While the rest of the world charges forward.

Now that is funny. I think it's hilarious how people, who live here, always try to put America down and believe that other countries are far more advanced. C'mon dude, it's the same arguments EVERYWHERE.

[Blake]

But you missed my point... We have genetic samples from dinosaur bones (not even fully fossilized) that are purported to be over 70 million years old. Genetic decay cannot be suppressed for that extent of time... what gives?

What gives is that the theories of decay and fossilization are changing due to these discoveries.......just like theories of evolution change.

[Blake]

Ask blake to google that for you... he's good at it.

Thanks, too bad you suck at it.

What is your theory of our origins and how exactly have you validated that theory?

[Blake]

Now that is funny. I think it's hilarious how people, who live here, always try to put America down and believe that other countries are far more advanced. C'mon dude, it's the same arguments EVERYWHERE.

In most civilized countries, not so much compared to the US.

Photo: Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds (2006)

The only country included in the study where adults were more likely than Americans to reject evolution was Turkey.

I'm good at googling. Just ask pheno.

[DarkReign]

Now that is funny. I think it's hilarious how people, who live here, always try to put America down and believe that other countries are far more advanced. C'mon dude, it's the same arguments EVERYWHERE.

Incorrect, good sir.

America is the only 1st world country where its inhabitants are still arguing the merits of evolution. Everyone else moved on 20 years ago.

Its because most 1st world countries are secular nations, whereas we are not. We are the last 1st world country that still clings to its Bible.

Is that a good or bad thing? I dont know.

What I do know is that state legislatures in certain areas of the country mandate the teaching of "intelligent design" on public funds in a direct attack on evolutionary teaching. Nevermind one is steeped in science and the other in faith.

So yes, I.Hustle, when it comes to the education of their youth and the advancement of their society, quite sadly, the world at large does a FAR better job at it then mighty America. America's universities, otoh, are the best in the world. But what do Americans say about our universities? "Bunch of liberal indoctrination!"

Every measurable test of education, America lags behind the rest of the world by a large margin. Especially in math and science. The Japanese, Chinese, Germans, Indians and even those damn Canadians are mopping the friggin floor with us.

Korea is the world leader in electronic manufacture, France is the site of the LHC, Europe is the world leader in nuclear technology, India churns out more PhDs than any other country in the world and Japan is the leader of bio-chemistry.

, Europe is making gains on the US in astronomy and astrophysics, too. If they ever get the Euro Space Agency up to snuff, when they start putting new and better telescopes of every kind into orbit like we did, theyre going to blow us away there, too.

I am not attributing all this to religion vs evolution, but it is a huge indicator to the current state of America that we cant get past it.

You have half the country clutching to their chosen invisible man inthe sky and the other who just doesnt think that aspect of life is very important to the tacit world and our place in it.

So long as we have a Federal Education system with standardized curriculum (which is a huge mistake, btw), and this system is designed to the lowest common denominators amongst a populace as diverse as ours, with diverse values and diverse priorities, we will always lag behind. I mean, it doesnt get anymore ridiculous than "intelligent design" as required learning for a handful of unfortunate residents in certain states.

Name me one other first world country with this issue at the forefront of all education. Iran, Saudi Arabia, et all are not first world countries...theyre theocracies/monarchies/dictatorships.

I wonder, and I really dont know, is South America like this on the issue? I realize theyre not first world, but for the sake of argument...a heavily Catholic continent like SA might better indicate where we are as a country.

So, to be very clear IH, America is the worst country in the 1st world at educating its youth. Yes, almost the entire relevant world does it -tons better than us. IMO, its because as a country with our diversity of priority, we get stuck arguing non-scientific en ies like ID out of some ancient compulsion to our faith.

And so long as we have a federal system in place, this tragedy will never cease.

I dont care if Bubba Jones, MiamiHeat, Phen and Spursncowboys want to believe evolution isnt true while offering no scientific alternative to replace it...that is their business.

But get them the away from the kids of this country, filling their heads with long forgotten relics of faith. These kids have to compete with the rest of the world and the world has long moved on from this ridiculous topic.

This is why I only derive entertainment from these threads, because it amuses that a country as free, diverse and rich as ours that there would be this much discourse over the merits of science and its place in the echelon of life.

I guess being free, diverse and rich doesnt instantly cure ignorance and supers ion.

Its astounding and amusing.

[DarkReign]

I completely missed Blake's graph.

[DarkReign]

Well, we beat Turkey, goddamnit!

USA! USA! USA!

ing morons.

[Phenomanul]

What gives is that the theories of decay and fossilization are changing due to these discoveries.......just like theories of evolution change.

But not the accepted age of when dinosaurs were believed to have died out. Got it.

The existence of soft tissues and proteins within bones of anything considered older than 50,000 years isn't convenient to the "established" viewpoint. It is amazing for that very reason!

You do realize how long a span 70 million years covers? Recorded earth history doesn't even go back an iota's measure of that span... 70,000,000 years (25,578,000,000 days )... You're claiming to tell me that the effects of entropy on a system far removed from absolute zero temperatures can be glossed over simply by stating that [science] is "changing the theories of decay"... You do realize that this is why fossilization occurs in the first place, right? Because most organic bonds are covalent and can't overcome extended periods of time without complete degradation... that's why our own proteins and genetic compounds are constantly being replenished by our bodies, that's why our cells have limited life-spans... that's why even the highly stable cellulose polymers in most plants will petrify over time... That's why much of the degradative products from dead biomass was converted into petroleum over the course of the years (in the bowels of the earth)...

Who's being deceived here??

But hey... we'll wait to see what creative scheme your athiest buddies can come up with to keep that wool's cloth over your eyes... I'm sure you'll accept anything.

This is as big as the "Dead Sea Scrolls" was to addressing the naysayers accusations about the alleged fidelity loss that was accrued from years and years of biblical text propagation. The Dead Sea Scrolls (from 200 B.C.) read almost identically to texts written in 1000 A.D. (the oldest scripts from the Hebrew Canon in existence at the time the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered).

You just haven't realized how big this discovery is yet...