| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - IS INFINITY REAL? -> EVOLUTION | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: EVOLUTION |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Apr 11, 2009 Views: 1982 | EVOLUTION This forum is NOT about evolution, in fact I do not even have it as a topic on my site. However, some people keep referring to it, and some even go so far as to say that the theory of evolution is wrong. They say God made everything as we see it today and the fossils were put there by God to test us. This would mean that dinosaurs did not exist! Give me strength! This is how I answer that nonsense: FOSSILS OCCUR IN SEQUENCES: Fossil sequences were recognized and established in their broad outlines long before Charles Darwin had even thought of evolution. Early geologists, in the 1700s and 1800s, noticed how fossils seemed to occur in sequences: certain assemblages of fossils were always found below other assemblages. The first work was done in England and France. Around 1800, William Smith in England, who was a canal surveyor, noticed that he could map out great tracts of rocks on the basis of their contained fossils. The sequences he saw in one part of the country could be correlated (matched) precisely with the sequences in another. He, and others at the time, had discovered the first principles of stratigraphy that older rocks lie below younger rocks and that fossils occur in a particular, predictable order. Then, geologists began to build up the stratigraphic column, the familiar listing of divisions of geological time Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, and so on. Each time unit was characterized by particular fossils. The scheme worked all round the world, without fail. From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of progress going on. All became clear, of course, in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his On the origin of species. The progress shown by the fossils was a documentation of the grand pattern of evolution through long spans of time. ACCURACY OF THE FOSSILS: Fossils prove that humans did not exist alongside dinosaurs. Since 1859, paleontologists, or fossil experts, have searched the world for fossils. In the past 150 years they have not found any fossils that Darwin would not have expected. New discoveries have filled in the gaps, and shown us in unimaginable detail the shape of the great tree of life. Darwin and his contemporaries could never have imagined the improvements in resolution of stratigraphy that have come since 1859, nor guessed what fossils were to be found in the southern continents, nor predicted the huge increase in the number of amateur and professional paleontologists worldwide. All these labors have not led to a single unexpected finding such as a human fossil from the time of the dinosaurs, or a Jurassic dinosaur in the same rocks as Silurian trilobites. RADIOCARBON DATING: The technique of radiocarbon dating was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949. Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work. He first demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately measuring the age of wood from an ancient Egyptian royal barge whose age was known from historical documents. CONCLUSION: The fossil record is fundamental to an understanding of evolution. Fossils document the order of appearance of groups and they tell us about some of the amazing plants and animals that died out long ago. Fossils can also show us how major crises, such as mass extinctions, happened, and how life recovered after them. If the fossils, or the dating of the fossils, could be shown to be inaccurate, all such information would have to be rejected as unsafe. Geologists and paleontologists are highly self-critical, and they have worried for decades about these issues. Repeated, and tough, regimes of testing have confirmed the broad accuracy of the fossils and their dating, so we can read the history of life from the rocks with confidence. To reject the theory of evolution simply because the church desperately wants us to believe that God made the world as we see it today is quite frankly ludicrous. |
| Posted By: ZX9 Posted On: Apr 12, 2009 Views: 1972 | RE: EVOLUTION You idiot! I did NOT say that fossils were ONLY there to test us. I said that their 'patterns' may have been there to test us. I do not claim that the dinosaurs did not exist! I claim the patterns in fossils you say to be an evolutionary chain leading up to us may be flawed. Radio carbon dating is incorrect, flawed, pathetic, and inaccurate. I don't really care if the guy got the Nobel or not. I care about whether or not it works. I have shown you (and you agreed) that it is inaccurate. I agree that fossils CAN show us many things about the past, but we disagree as to what they can show. Is it not true that there is missing links in the 'chain', never discovered? It is true indeed. I know some of what Darwin published, for instance dinos->birds. Yes, there are similarities, and there are things close-looking in different families. That doesn't prove anything. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Apr 13, 2009 Views: 1967 | RE: RE: EVOLUTION 1) "You idiot! I did NOT say that fossils were ONLY there to test us. I said that their 'patterns' may have been there to test us. I do not claim that the dinosaurs did not exist! I claim the patterns in fossils you say to be an evolutionary chain leading up to us may be flawed." You never mentioned any "pattern". I asked you this question: "If God made man and all the animals just as they are today I wonder why He went to all the trouble to put fossils of dinosaurs and other extinct animals deep in the ground?". You replied: "Does the Bible not say that He will test us? Does the Bible not say that in the end there will be few believers? Evolution will eventually be to far away from God for a corralation to be credible". The ONLY possible way to read that is you say all fossils were put in the ground to test us. You call ME an idiot! 2) "I do not claim that the dinosaurs did not exist!" Well, that is VERY strange then! You said cavemen did not exist "did cavemen, not that I believe in them, record their history?.." So NOW you are saying that cavemen fossils are fakes put there by God but dinosaurs were real? Unbelievable! 3) "I claim the patterns in fossils you say to be an evolutionary chain leading up to us may be flawed." Oh really! For someone who does not believe in evolution how can there be a flaw in the pattern? This is what you really said. a) "God made us. Why would he destroy us, evolve us, change us from who we are?" b) "look at the first life form, how did it evolve if there were no life forms before it? How? How? How?" c) "Evolution was an idea Darwin had. He considered it probable and looked for proof. He found none." You have always maintained that evolution never happened and God made us and all the animals as we are today, so how could there be a "flaw" in the "pattern" of fossils, fossils that you say God put in the ground? Not only are you totally clueless as to how evolution works you can´t even remember what you said previously and end up contradicting yourself! Give it up and try and find a subject you know something about because with evolution you are WAY out of your depth and just keep making VERY silly remarks. |
| Posted By: ZX9 Posted On: Apr 13, 2009 Views: 1962 | RE: EVOLUTION Lol, what fossils of prehumans? They are merely decayed humans, decayed animals, a mixture of scattered bones from misc. creatures, and misc. other crap put together in the way you want it to. Most are frauds, MADE by humans: " Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of manuntil it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down! Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig. Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52) Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983) Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)" Take a look at the site I got that from: http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html It doesn't argue against me there! Basically, if you are too lazy to read it: piltdown man: forgery Nebraska man:WILD PIG! tooth Java man: real humans Orce man: a DONKEY! (you have to read that one, it is hilarious!) Neanderthal: real humans!"believers in an after-life"(oh yeah) If you've got an argument, why don't you reread the paragraph. PLEASE go to the page I gave and read up! There, my dear friend, is some serious evidence(basically, I prefer not to post everything). OK, I meant the 'pattern' of evolution, as I HAVE explained before. I am not stupid enough to randomly chime in 'a pattern'. Keith, please, please, PLEASE read the whole thing, and the page from the link! (It disproves/proves other things, such as Haekels faked embryonic drawings, Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis: Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor, etc.) |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Apr 13, 2009 Views: 1960 | RE: EVOLUTION So you are now saying that there is not a single genuine fossil of a Neanderthal man in existence - because they did not exist - but dinosaur fossils are okay because they did. So God planted some false fossils but some are genuine and only you know which is which! Who on earth do you think you are to think you are so much smarter than all the professionals of the last two hundred years who have been examining these fossils? You are just a dumb 11 year old who is absolutely clueless when it comes to the facts of evolution but swallows any old crap the church fills your head with. Have you any idea how much science the church has tried to to say is false over the centuries? Obviously not, have a quick study of the Catholic church and learn something about religious manipulation of the truth. I give up, you are honestly too bleeding stupid to bother with. I have come across some idiots in my time but you genuinely have to be in the top three. You seriously need to wise up and stop talking such a load of crap! BTW that link you asked me to read about fake fossils, I did read it and guess what, it says Neanderthal man was real! You even quote that part!!!!Yet again you recommend a site that goes AGAINST your argument. You just get more stupid with every post you make! |
| Posted By: Kevin Posted On: Apr 13, 2009 Views: 1953 | RE: RE: EVOLUTION Keith, its impossible. We've both tried to talk to this kid and enlighten him to reality but its just impossible to teach an 11 year old about this stuff when he disagrees with every piece of SOLID evidence we present to him. He tries to point out that all of the prehuman fossils are fake or whatever and uses some foolish site to support his claims. He just doesn't understand that 90% of the crap posted on the internet are based on nothing at all except one person's uneducated opinion. Hopefully he will grow up and learn the truth but until then its hopeless. He acts as though he knows everything becuase he can go onto uncredited websites and read. Do you not understand that Keith has been learning about this stuff for longer than you've been alive and I although only in college have still invested much much much more time in learning and understanding this world than you do. Its just hopeless. You can't have a legitimate debate with a person who contains 1% of the knowledge you do and won't accept any scientifically credible evidence that has been studied for hundreds of years. He believes evidence from a nonsense website by people with no real learning at all in the field is equal to that of the work of thousands of scientists over a time of over one hundred years. No use in talking to him anymore. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Apr 13, 2009 Views: 1949 | RE: EVOLUTION You are so right, that´s why I said I give up with him, there is no point in trying to have a discussion with someone who has no idea what they are talking about. |
| Posted By: ZX9 Posted On: Apr 14, 2009 Views: 1941 | RE: EVOLUTION Keith and Kevin, You guys are pathetic! I AM FED UP. Ok, this argument could go on forever. I do have other things to say, keep in mind, but I have better stuff to do. I realize that there is no way to ever disprove you; you will just say I'm ignorant, stupid, dumb, and mainly clueless. I DO know what I'm talking about! All you have to say is I'm stupid. Ok, back to something partially scientific. I DID admit that neanderthals (or something like them) existed--because, until disproven, it has hard evidence. That DOES NOT mean we evolved from them, it means something humanish existed also. ****************************************************** NOTE FROM KEITH: For the sake of clarity humans did NOT evolve from Neanderthals. I reprint an extract from Wikipedia..."Neanderthal, is an extinct member of the Homo genus that is known from Pleistocene specimens found in Europe and parts of western and central Asia. Neanderthals are either classified as a subspecies of humans (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) or as a separate species (Homo neanderthalensis)." ***************************************************** Give me one reason why that site is 'foolish' besides it being creationist. THAT GUY HAS PROOF! IT IS NOT HIS OPINION! How can you say that is opinion Kevin? Keith how is that, having proof and stating it, foolish. Besides, at the bottom of that page there are tons of links to places supporting it. Apparently I won on the Archeoraptor and Haekels faked embryonic drawings. If that's not enough info on the page, go to another link at the bottom of the page. There's more than enough to PROVE YOU WRONG. I am leaving. To resist temptation to reply back, I will destroy the link on my desktop and bookmark. I AM FINALLY LEAVING. This is endless, unprogressing, evidenceless, useless talk. Keith and Kevin, you have not beat me down. I will try to be a scientist later in my life, and I'll disprove not only you, but many more people. The annoying thing is that I can't tell you my name on the internet, to say look for me in the news and that everytime I read your replys, I see a reply pop into my head, so I research it and reply anyway. Read the site and some links. Maybe I'll win over on those topics. -ZX9 P.S. I don't believe in a lot of dinosaurs either. Many are just another sex of the same species, or babies of them thought to be another species. I have proof but I'm leaving; I have homework... |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Apr 14, 2009 Views: 1935 | RE: EVOLUTION Well said Kevin but you are wasting your time. Anyone who can come out with the following remark has to be way too stupid to understand what we are saying. "I don't believe in a lot of dinosaurs either. Many are just another sex of the same species, or babies of them thought to be another species. I have proof..." Ha ha ahaahaa. Unreal. He wins the prize for this year´s most stupid remark. Well done ZX9, you are a prize winning idiot! Goodbye and good riddance. Missing you already! |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Apr 17, 2009 Views: 1926 | RE: EVOLUTION Hey look professor, I have found a whole fossil of a T Rex, come and see! Well done lad, well done, but it´s not a T Rex though. But prof, it surely must be, its exactly the same down to the very last detail. Almost right laddie, but for one thing, it´s a lot smaller than your average T Rex, so it must be another species of dinosaur entirely. Wow prof, that´s amazing! What shall we call it then? Let´s call it ZX9colossulstupidorexosoraus. |
| Posted By: Wormwood Posted On: Apr 19, 2009 Views: 1917 | RE: EVOLUTION Lol. That´s funny! It´s a shame the idiot has gone he is so fu*cking stupid he was funny. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Apr 19, 2009 Views: 1909 | RE: EVOLUTION You´re right, but personally I´m glad he´s gone, he became very tedious repeating all that nonsense. The funny thing is though he was arguing with himself, he would produce all these absolutely farcical "facts" about evolution, explain why they were farcical and give that as "proof" that evolution is wrong. Doh!!!! It´s funny how a stupid 11 year old kid can imagine, even for a moment, that they are so much cleverer than all the professional scientists that have studied evolution for the last 200 years. People like him end up learning very little. |
| Posted By: Mike Posted On: Apr 24, 2009 Views: 1899 | RE: EVOLUTION Just as a preemptive statement, I am a High school student, who is 16, 5 years older then you. Now seriously listen, when i was your age (yes I still remember)I HATED when people patronized me, I HATED it. so I know how you feel (about that, but even when i was ur age, i didnt believ that crap, hell even when i was seven years old in ccd i asked my teacher if there was any 'proof' that god existed and all she could reply with was 'faith') . But once in a while you just have to realize that right now your brain is going through a MASSIVE amount of growth, the frontal lobe of your brain (the area that effects logic, reasoning and conceptual ideas) is being activated. Right now concrete ideas are your only reference. even though you reject all of these facts laid out before you, that does not automatically make the perspectives of hundreds and thousands of educated men completely false. From the information you have seen and gathered at this point in your life, yeah, none of this is "sound" evidence to you. But I ask you this, did you search for a specific answer to your question when were doing research, because if that is the case then you will find the answer you were looking for. try researching both sides of the argument, and see if your mind is changed. Know your what you criticize, even if if you think its all "nonsense". And if you do that, then maybe people on this site will give you some credit, and respect you for being a well informed 11-year old, instead of disrespecting you for being an ignorant person regardless of age. - Also, if your looking for proof of the age of the earth, look up radio-active isotope dating. it is far and away the most stable and accurate form of molecular dating. keep in mind that the radioactive elements tested cannot be broken down or altered by anything other then their own steady and well known intervals of self decomposition,known as a half life. -if you go to a good school you'll learn all you need to know about what you are talking about in freshmen bio. |
| Posted By: Mike Posted On: Apr 24, 2009 Views: 1898 | RE: RE: RE: EVOLUTION oops haha, I didnt realize he was gone,I was trying to talk him down so he didnt continually spam this site w/ uninformed bs haha |
| Posted By: Kieren Posted On: May 16, 2009 Views: 1664 | RE: EVOLUTION I am constantly amazed by the ridiculous comments made by people - such as ZX9 - (why name yourself after a mediocre motorcycle?) who refuse to accept evolution. To ignore such compelling evidence, from a number of different disciplines, simply goes to show how it is impossible to teach some people anything, they will remain ignorant for the rest of their unenlightened lives. What a waste! |
| Pages [ 1 2 ] Next Page -> |