Evidence For Human Evolution (Simple)

[Rob Osborn]

No they're not.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1507

BTW, Dawkins is the worst of the worst atheists. So it makes sense you would link him

[Rob Osborn]

More obtuse idiosyncratic definitions of words.

Jibber jabber blah blah blah

[thesometimesaint]

I.D.E.A. is the worst of the ideas about science. So it makes sense for you to link to them.

 

From your link ...Smith purposefully mislabels ID as a form of creationism, but we'll ignore that for the moment.

 

Lets not.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists

A particular sentence in an early 1987 draft read as follows:

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

In one particular draft dated to after the Edwards decision, an editor had apparently copied and pasted "design proponents" over the word "creationists". However in doing so had pasted over only part of the latter, resulting in a weird neologism, "cdesign proponentsists".^[1][2]

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.

This typo has been mocked by some as the missing link between creationism and intelligent design, notably ironic considering creationists don't accept transitional forms. It's possibly this aspect alone that has promoted the meme to be as famous as it is. If they'd learned to use "Find and Replace"^[3] properly, then this wouldn't have happened.

Edited May 2, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Jibber jabber blah blah blah

 

Obviously your "understanding" of the meaning of words.

[Rob Osborn]

I.D.E.A. is the worst of the ideas about science. So it makes sense for you to link to them.

 

From your link ...Smith purposefully mislabels ID as a form of creationism, but we'll ignore that for the moment.

 

Lets not.

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists

A particular sentence in an early 1987 draft read as follows:

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.

In one particular draft dated to after the Edwards decision, an editor had apparently copied and pasted "design proponents" over the word "creationists". However in doing so had pasted over only part of the latter, resulting in a weird neologism, "cdesign proponentsists".^{%5B1%5D%5B2%5D}

The basic metabolic pathways (reaction chains) of nearly all organisms are the same. Is this because of descent from a common ancestor, or because only these pathways (and their variations) can sustain life? Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.

This typo has been mocked by some as the missing link between creationism and intelligent design, notably ironic considering creationists don't accept transitional forms. It's possibly this aspect alone that has promoted the meme to be as famous as it is. If they'd learned to use "Find and Replace"^%5B3%5D properly, then this wouldn't have happened.

More atheist attacks. Whats new?

[bcuzbcuz]

As a matter of protocol, you cannot request a CFR on an opinion.  He is clearly expressing his opinion, so his reference is ==>> himself.

Point taken. I should recognize an argumentative postulate by now.

[bcuzbcuz]

False on what premise? I hear a lot of conjecture but nothing of substantial worth to say life has been around longer than 6,000 years.

Then you obviously didn't read the article you referenced http://www.wired.com/2010/09/giraffes-necks-for-food-or-necks-for-sex/.

"According to the known swath of fossil giraffes, significant neck elongation began around 14 million years ago during the Late Miocene – after the lineage to which the relatively short-necked okapi split off – and by about 5 million years ago giraffes of modern proportions had evolved. As bracketed between known fossil types, the transition between the early, short-necked forms and the first long-necked giraffes probably occurred between 14 and 12 million years ago, and if further discoveries bear this out then it appears that the elongation of giraffe necks occurred during a global pattern of aridification in which grasslands replaced forests. "

You can't use an article that talks about the development in the fossil record of physical changes in an animals neck while at the same time refusing to accept the parameters of the fossil record referenced to. That, my friend, is trying to have your cake white eating it, too.

Your "God made them that way" corresponds extremely poorly with the fossil record. In fact, it doesn't have any common points at all.

[thesometimesaint]

More atheist attacks. Whats new?

 

It is right out of your "Of People and Pandas" Bible. As I said earlier there is no and there never will be any amount of evidence to convince you. It is your religious dogma.

Edited May 2, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

Then you obviously didn't read the article you referenced http://www.wired.com/2010/09/giraffes-necks-for-food-or-necks-for-sex/.

"According to the known swath of fossil giraffes, significant neck elongation began around 14 million years ago during the Late Miocene – after the lineage to which the relatively short-necked okapi split off – and by about 5 million years ago giraffes of modern proportions had evolved. As bracketed between known fossil types, the transition between the early, short-necked forms and the first long-necked giraffes probably occurred between 14 and 12 million years ago, and if further discoveries bear this out then it appears that the elongation of giraffe necks occurred during a global pattern of aridification in which grasslands replaced forests. "

You can't use an article that talks about the development in the fossil record of physical changes in an animals neck while at the same time refusing to accept the parameters of the fossil record referenced to. That, my friend, is trying to have your cake white eating it, too.

Your "God made them that way" corresponds extremely poorly with the fossil record. In fact, it doesn't have any common points at all.

Its all conjecture. Scientists cant know ages that predate history. There is no difference with that than me claiming God came down and placed animals here fully functioning.

[Rob Osborn]

It is right out of your "Of People and Pandas" Bible. As I said earlier there is no and there never will be any amount of evidence to convince you. It is your religious dogma.

What do you have against the Creator?

[bcuzbcuz]

Its all conjecture. Scientists cant know ages that predate history. There is no difference with that than me claiming God came down and placed animals here fully functioning.

You really do have some strange misperceptions of the world around you. Nobody has ever walked on the sun, but scientists can give detailed information about the make up, events and characteristics of our sun. They postulate a theory or an idea, then investigate, study and measure to see if their concepts hold true. That to you is "conjecture". And by "conjecture" you have provided ample evidence, that you mean wild, un-substantiated guesses, akin to fables and mystic fabrications.

You have stated belief in the stories of the Bible; That the sun stood still in the heavens. Do you have any idea what such an event would do to the whole earth? (the sun would not have stood still....unless you think the sun revolves around the erath....the earth would have stopped in its rotations)

You accept as true that men lived to be 900+ years of age. My mother was 97 when she died, so I've seen how the ravages of time can cripple and disable the human body. The Egyptians recorded in detail the life of Ramses the second who reigned until his 90's. His teeth caused him constant pain. His skeleton, in his mumified body, shows the signs of age on his body. Some of the bones in his body look like an "Aero" chocolate bar. Aging is a natural process. Anyone living 900 years would be lame, crippled and toothless. Let me know when anyone finds a skeleton of a person who has reached 900 years of age.

But getting back to your statement. Show some, any, evidence that verifies the idea that the earth is 6000 years old. I'll even accept any evidence, from the major ice fields of tthe earth, for example, that go back 4500 years...and then suddenly stop...or evidence that shows that they suddenly appeared at that time. I've got lots of time. I can wait.

[Rob Osborn]

You really do have some strange misperceptions of the world around you. Nobody has ever walked on the sun, but scientists can give detailed information about the make up, events and characteristics of our sun. They postulate a theory or an idea, then investigate, study and measure to see if their concepts hold true. That to you is "conjecture". And by "conjecture" you have provided ample evidence, that you mean wild, un-substantiated guesses, akin to fables and mystic fabrications.

You have stated belief in the stories of the Bible; That the sun stood still in the heavens. Do you have any idea what such an event would do to the whole earth? (the sun would not have stood still....unless you think the sun revolves around the erath....the earth would have stopped in its rotations)

You accept as true that men lived to be 900+ years of age. My mother was 97 when she died, so I've seen how the ravages of time can cripple and disable the human body. The Egyptians recorded in detail the life of Ramses the second who reigned until his 90's. His teeth caused him constant pain. His skeleton, in his mumified body, shows the signs of age on his body. Some of the bones in his body look like an "Aero" chocolate bar. Aging is a natural process. Anyone living 900 years would be lame, crippled and toothless. Let me know when anyone finds a skeleton of a person who has reached 900 years of age.

But getting back to your statement. Show some, any, evidence that verifies the idea that the earth is 6000 years old. I'll even accept any evidence, from the major ice fields of tthe earth, for example, that go back 4500 years...and then suddenly stop...or evidence that shows that they suddenly appeared at that time. I've got lots of time. I can wait.

How are we supposed to believe the radiometric dates of bones and like when it has been shown that they can be wrong by thousands of magnitudes? Dinosaur bones that have been dated show dates in the thousands, not millions of years. Then you have issues like finding actual soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Then there is the whole issue of the ice cores and the infamous story of the lost squadron found under over 250 feet down in the ice. Then you have issues like the famous polystrate fossils that penetrate several different strata layers supposedly taking long periods of time to build up. These are just a few reasons that long ages not only should be questioned but that alternate theories be looked at.

[ERayR]

There are probably as many different types of Creationism as there are creationists to espouse them. NONE of them hold up in science.

 

It all depends on which God you worship.

[cdowis]

You have stated belief in the stories of the Bible; That the sun stood still in the heavens. Do you have any idea what such an event would do to the whole earth? (the sun would not have stood still....unless you think the sun revolves around the erath....the earth would have stopped in its rotations)

 

 

 

Simple == it certainly is possible that this was an optical illusion where there was a very bright light in the sky, and the best description was that the sun stood still.