Reply With Quote
They are out there....
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...th-survey-says
[facepalm]
They are out there....
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...th-survey-says
[facepalm]
They are in here.....
this guy's my favorite
LOL banana boy...
And yet your still not able to debunk it.
a pig more human than a fetus. lol evolutionist are disgusting people.
lol disgusted by science
shes blinded me with science!!
no, not science, idiot evolutionist who think a pigs life is the same as a human fetus.
now i want bacon
Rofl those guys
this is literally the 20th time you've posted this video since we've started having this discussionAnd yet your still not able to debunk it.
... i dont need to keep explaining why its horse . add some new content to your photobucket
What needs debunking? You will have to post a coherent thought, if you want something addressed, mouse.And yet your still not able to debunk it.
That isn't really coherent either.
Is there something you would like explained?
OR
Perhaps you think that offspring don't really inherit traits from their parents?
What I find really disgusting is a being that orders his followers to hack children to death.
Let's start with a few bits of data supporting the theory of evolution.
One important thing for evolution to take place is simply time. The initial steps from unicellular prokaryotes to eukaryotes took a while. If evolution is to be proven, you first have to have sufficient time for the race to begin.
First up: geology.
Lithologic Stratigraphy
http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-...ution-is-true/The Earth’s crust has layers. Some of these layers are from the decomposition of sediment, others come from chemical precipitation, others from decaying organic matter, and others from volcanic lava. The reason we can see the layers is because they were formed in different ways.
Fancy way of saying that dirt has layers. Some of which are the result of different processes.Lithostratigraphy is a sub-discipline of stratigraphy, the geological science associated with the study of strata or rock layers. Major focuses include geochronology, comparative geology, and petrology. In general a stratum will be primarily igneous or sedimentary relating to how the rock was formed.
Sedimentary layers are laid down by deposition of sediment associated with weathering processes, decaying organic matters (biogenic) or through chemical precipitation. These layers are distinguishable as having many fossils and are important for the study of biostratigraphy. Igneous layers are either plutonic or volcanic in character depending upon the cooling rate of the rock. These layers are generally devoid of fossils and represent intrusions and volcanic activity that occurred over the geologic history of the area.
There are a number of principles that are used to explain the appearance of stratum. When an igneous rock cuts across a formation of sedimentary rock, then we can say that the igneous intrusion is younger than the sedimentary rock. The principle of superposition states that a sedimentary rock layer in a tectonically undisturbed stratum is younger than the one beneath and older than the one above it. The principle of original horizontality states that the deposition of sediments occurs as essentially horizontal beds.
Step from this to figuring out how long it took for these various layers to form.
Here we rely on first on the law of superposition. Oldest layers will be deeper than newer layers.
To begin to accept evolution as true, you need to have evidence of this. Fairly easy. Just dig a lot, and see what turns up.
You start with easy things, such as human settlements of long-lived cities. London is a good example, Rome another.
Seems common sense enough, but I can provide a few scientific papers if anybody wants, but the basics were laid down as early as the 1600's for modern consideration of fossils by a gentleman who simply asked how a solid such as a fossil, could end up inside another solid, such as a layer of rock.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/steno.html
A noble attempt sir.Let's start with a few bits of data supporting the theory of evolution.
One important thing for evolution to take place is simply time. The initial steps from unicellular prokaryotes to eukaryotes took a while. If evolution is to be proven, you first have to have sufficient time for the race to begin.
First up: geology.
Lithologic Stratigraphy
http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-...ution-is-true/
Fancy way of saying that dirt has layers. Some of which are the result of different processes.
Step from this to figuring out how long it took for these various layers to form.
Here we rely on first on the law of superposition. Oldest layers will be deeper than newer layers.
To begin to accept evolution as true, you need to have evidence of this. Fairly easy. Just dig a lot, and see what turns up.
You start with easy things, such as human settlements of long-lived cities. London is a good example, Rome another.
Seems common sense enough, but I can provide a few scientific papers if anybody wants, but the basics were laid down as early as the 1600's for modern consideration of fossils by a gentleman who simply asked how a solid such as a fossil, could end up inside another solid, such as a layer of rock.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/steno.html
"Do not try to reason a man out of something he did not reason himself into."
-Jonathan Swift
These guys don't want the truth as it now stands.
But it might help others who lurk. So, good effort.
Well, I have to read and understand it as well. I might not change some people's minds, but along the way I will learn more than I knew before I started. Feels good to see at least one serious attempt at an honest dialogue, even if it is unreciprocated.
Well, let's first determine what a "transitional fossil" is. Defining terms is an important thing in science, and any attempt to understand any topic.
Easy enough to start with wikipedia:
Basically, for evolution to be true, one should be able to show, generally, how groups of animals changed over time.A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.
This is generally done by using the above noted Law of Superposition.
Evolution, as a workable theory, predicts that if you have a fossil of an animal in any given layer or era, you should be able to dig down to previous layers, and locate the ancestors for that species grouping.
Archaeopteryx being one of the most commonly presented examples. We have modern birds, that we had always suspected came from dinosaurs. Digging down we find a dinosaur with bird-like traits, below any examples of the first birds.
Whales are another good example of how evolution predicts things that we eventually found. Whales, dolphins, and porpoises, are air breathing mammals, relatively recently emerged.
For evolution to be true, we would expect that these animals would have had to come from animals that lived on land. Further, we would know approximately *when* these animals would have to have existed, simply by observing the oldest whale fossils we could find and theorizing that their ancestors came before.
After a lot of research, we finally discovered the first candidates in the early 80's, and in the mid 90's enough other specimens were found for a reasonable consensus about where whales probably came from to emerge:
Further reading could be had here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...le/evograms_03
Here I will pause, and note a common logical flaw in many peoples reasoning;
Moving the goalposts.
Logical fallacy[edit]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpostsMoving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[3] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the end result is changed, too.[4]
Or if you prefer, a better presented form of this flawed argument here:
MThe common application of this flawed line of reasoning is to insist on the impossible proof that every single transitional form be presented before evolution is "proved".OVING THE GOALPOSTS
(also known as: gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of])
Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponent’s argument.
Logical Form:
Issue A has been raised, and adequately answered.
Issue B is then raised, and adequately answered.
.....
Issue Z is then raised, and adequately answered.
(despite all issues adequately answered, the opponent refuses to conceded or accept the argument.
Example #1:
Ken: There has to be an objective morality because otherwise terms like “right” and “wrong” would be meaningless, since they have no foundation for comparison.
Rob: The terms “right” and “wrong” are based on cultural norms, which do have a subjective foundation -- one that changes as the moral sphere of the culture changes. The term “heavy” does not have an objective standard, yet we have no problem using that term in a meaningful way. In fact, very few relational terms have any kind of objective foundation.
Ken: But without an objective morality, we would all be lost morally as a race.
Rob: Many would say that we are.
Ken: But how can you say that torturing children for fun is morally acceptable in any situation?
Rob: Personally, I wouldn’t, but you are implying that anything that is not objective must necessarily be seen in all possible ways. A feather may not be seen as “heavy” to anyone, but that doesn’t mean its “lightness” is still not relative to other objects.
Ken: But God is the standard of objective morality. Prove that wrong!
Rob: That I cannot do.
Explanation: Ken starts with a statement explaining why he thinks there has to be an objective morality -- a statement based on a reasonable argument that can be pursued with reason and logic. Rob adequately answers that objection, as indicated by Ken’s move away from that objection to a new objection. This pattern continues until we arrive at an impossible request. Despite all the objections being adequately answered, at no time does Ken concede any points or abandon the argument.
Example #2: Perhaps the most classic example of this fallacy is the argument for the existence of God. Due to understanding of nature through science, many of the arguments that used to be used for God (or gods) were abandoned, only to be replaced with new ones, usually involving questions to which science has not definitively answered yet. The move from creationism to intelligent design is a prime example. Currently the origin of life is a popular argument for God (although a classic argument from ignorance), and an area where we very well may have a scientific answer in the next decade, at which time, the “origin of life” argument will fade away and be replaced by another, thus moving the figurative goalposts farther back as our understanding of the natural world increases.
This is neither feasible, nor required to accept something as true.
Take this series of numbers for example:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, (X), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, ...
We can deduce what "X" is, even if we don't know with an absolute certainty what comes after 14 in the series, simply by forming a hypothesis that the rule governing the set is "add one to the number on the left".
http://arstechnica.com/science/2008/...ion-to-flight/When people think of mammals, bats are probably not the first animals to come to mind, yet they account for roughly a fifth of current mammal species. They simply have so many specialized features—large ears and echolocation, radically extended forelimb bones, skin flaps connecting their limbs—that they seem quite removed from what we view as a typical mammal. A new fossil find from Wyoming, described in this week's edition of Nature, sheds light on the origin of many of these features.
As you can see at right, the fossil is astonishingly well preserved. It comes from deposits that date to about 52.5 million years ago, a time when many mammalian groups were expanding, possibly in response to the environmental changes associated with the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. The species has been named Onychonycteris finneyi, meaning "clawed bat" and honoring its discoverer, Bonnie Finney.
The clawed bat part refers to one of the many intermediate features that make Onychonycteris the most primitive bat species ever described. In all current and prior fossil species of bats, most of the digits in the wing lack the claws typical of mammalian digits. That's not the case here: all Onychonycteris digits end in claws. The hind limbs are also unusually long, as is the tail, but the limb contains a feature that suggests the presence of a skin flap between the hind limbs and the body.
Asked for, and given.
The creationist response: move the goal posts. "but you can't find...."
Every single time a predicted transitional form is found that fills in yet another gap, this is what happens.
Dig into it.
Transitional forms predicted by evolution have been, and continue to be found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/? le=List...tional_fossils
Modern taxonomy and phylogeny, fully support evolution, and provide clues and predictions of all manner of transitional forms.
One of the strongest ways in which the evidence for evolution becomes overwhelming is when you find a theory's predictions being borne out in multiple lines of evidence.
If one wants to read up on this aspect of how the study of genetics supports the predictions of evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
Not only does it tell you why something is true, it shows you how to determine for yourself, independently of what any scientist tells you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Easy enough to do.he oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.
If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.
Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.
If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18) for technical detail.
.. the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.
The resulting plot has data points for each of five meteorites that contain varying levels of uranium, a single data point for all meteorites that do not, and one (solid circle) data point for modern terrestrial sediments. It looks like this:
Learn about radioactive half-lifes, and gather data regarding rocks and their compositions.
The only assumption required is that the laws of physics haven't changed. Generally something easy to show.
A chicken embryo with a dinosaur-like snout instead of a beak has been developed by scientists
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150512-bird-grows-face-of-dinosaur
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
