Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Freddy said:
Why do they have to swim, fly, walk and talk?
Click to expand...
If you recant your common ancestor for all living creatures assumption then plants do not have to swim, fly, walk, etc. Is that what you’re implying?
 
Last edited:
Well, thanks for that total non answer.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Noose001 said:
Earth year’ is a concept. Time is an experience. There’s no 4.5 billion earth years if it was not experienced.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that there was no time until humans first began to experience it? Is it a requirement for some mind to experience something before it’s “real”. Sorry, I’m having a hard time trying to understand your view of reality.
 
Pattylt said:
Are you saying that there was no time until humans first began to experience it? Is it a requirement for some mind to experience something before it’s “real”. Sorry, I’m having a hard time trying to understand your view of reality.
Click to expand...
If you can describe or define or even explain what time is, you’ll understand why Physics doesn’t have a proper definition of time yet it is a fundamental phenomenon in Physics.
 
Noose001 said:
If you can describe or define or even explain what time is, you’ll understand why Physics doesn’t have a proper definition of time yet it is a fundamental phenomenon in Physics.
Click to expand...
Time is one of the dimensions of the four dimensional manifold that Einsteinian physics uses to describe space-time. It is very well understood.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Tail bud? A misnomer perhaps for End of Gastrointestinal Tract
 
No. It’s an extension of the spine…a tail and it’s reabsorbed…usually.
 
Techno2000 said:
A tadpole has a tail also, but that’s no proof of macroevolution.
Click to expand...
Proof, no. Science does not do “proof”. It is, however, evidence of mactoevolution as are the tail and gill arches seen in human embryos.

Science has the evidence, a great deal of it. If you want to change the science then you will also need evidence.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
You say it prevents macroevolution …
Click to expand...
Never said or wrote that.
Click to expand...
Whaaaat? Are you being serious? This has been asked of you countless times. And you’ve completely ignored it. Hoping it would go away I guess. And I’ll bet in tbe interim you’ve been searching for some sort of answer - any answer that you could give that will prevent it looking like you haven’t got the slightest idea about the matter. But you’ve found nothing at all.

So you’ve come to realise that there are only two choices. Keep ignoring it, showing that you have no answer, or…and this really takes some chutzpah, deny that there’s anything to answer.

This from out good friends at Berkley again:

'Microevolutionary change might seem too unimportant to account for such amazing evolutionary transitions as the origin of dinosaurs or the radiation of land plants — however, it is not. Microevolution happens on a small time scale — from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale — in other words, macroevolution!'

All you’ve been pushing ever since you put fingers to keyboard is that there only ever has been and only ever will be be microevolutionary changes. And as per the quote above, if you keep adding small changes then you obviously get further and further from what you started with and you get a larger change. It’s cumulative. It doesn’t stop. It’s a continual process. But you deny this. You state very clearly indeed that macroevolution doesn’t happen. That the process, by that very claim, must stop. That the changes must stop at some point.

So where is this boundary? What causes the small changes from accumulating? Explain to us how the process stops working.

Or alternatively you can deny the validity of the last sentence in the quote where it says that the process takes millions of years. We know that you think this pale blue dot is only a few thousand years old and that’s why macroevolition can’t happen - there’s simply not been enough time. Just confirm that and there’s nothing else to add.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
A tadpole has a tail also, but that’s no proof of macroevolution.
Click to expand...
Proof, no. Science does not do “proof”. It is, however, evidence of mactoevolution as are the tail and gill arches seen in human embryos.

Science has the evidence, a great deal of it. If you want to change the science then you will also need evidence.
Click to expand...
So, how then, can we say such scientific theories such as spontaneous generation have been proven wrong ?
 
Techno2000 said:
So, how then, can we say such scientific theories such as spontaneous generation have been proven wrong ?
Click to expand...
That is a disproof. Science can do that. The Hindu fundamentalist claim that the material universe in hundreds of billions of years old have been disproved.
 
Noose001 said:
Evidence?! A gill is a gill when it functions according to its structure and so is a tail. A human embryo does not need a gill or tail and so doesn’t have a gill or tail.
Click to expand...
I did not say “gill”, I said “gill arches”. In fish the gill arches develop into the jaws and gills. In mammals they develop into jaws and various structures in the neck area.

That common development of the first gill arch into jaws is part of the evidence for our descent from a jawed fish ancestor.

As to our embryonic tail, sometimes it does not disappear, but survives to give a tailed human. See Figure 2.2.3 on this page.
 
rossum said:
I did not say “gill”, I said “gill arches”. In fish the gill arches develop into the jaws and gills. In mammals they develop into jaws and various structures in the neck area.
Click to expand...
Gill arches develop into gills for fish, that’s why they are called gill arches, mammals never have ‘gill arches’ at any moment in their development. Try giving it an appropriate name, perhaps pharyngeal arches or anything but not gill arches.
rossum said:
As to our embryonic tail, sometimes it does not disappear, but survives to give a tailed human. See Figure 2.2.3 on this page.
Click to expand...
This is just another evolutionary own goal. Do mutations make the human embryonic tail disappear or do they make it appear?
 
Noose001 said:
This is just another evolutionary own goal. Do mutations make the human embryonic tail disappear or do they make it appear?
Click to expand...
Humans are descended from animals which had tails, like most mammals. In our normal embryonic development a tail starts to develop and is later re-absorbed. Sometimes the re-absorbtion fails, either due to a mutation or some transient environmental influence, and a human with a tail is born.

Something similar happens with chickens, which are descended from animals which had teeth, hence the expression, “rare as hen’s teeth”. Both are examples of atavisms.
 
Freddy said:
Whaaaat?
Click to expand...
Allow me to summarize your 350 word post:

“Fred could not find in o_mlly’s 285+ posts a quote that support Fred’s strawman.”

The other 337 words say nothing new.

You tried your usual deflection, i.e., launch a strawman, instead of responding to Ripperger’s article. Of course, that deflection followed the other obligatory fallacies from the Atheist’s Playbook, e.g, “He believes in creation”, “He’s stupid”, “He doesn’t understand science”, etc.

But in the end, Fred, you did the right thing – acknowledged the truth in Ripperger’s article, i.e. macroevolution’s claim of a common ancestor for all living creatures is impossible.

While we would have hoped your admission moved you to enroll in an RCIA classes, we do wish you well in your Buddhist studies (as I predicted).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top