As in the days of Noah.....

[tommyjones]

Actually that's a lot better than what your scientists have been known to do. Ever heard of Java Man?




That 'some guy' is actually Dr. David Menton, an Associate Professor of anatomy and neurobiology at Washington University.

did that guy ever look at the bones or is he jsut pulling this all out of his nonexistent bung?

 

[Xaquin44]

Why is someone who doesn't even believe we have bones arguing about fossils?

 

[tommyjones]

Actually that's a lot better than what your scientists have been known to do. Ever heard of Java Man?




That 'some guy' is actually Dr. David Menton, an Associate Professor of anatomy and neurobiology at Washington University.

as to java man, they had several bones and two sets that seem to be from the same species.

so are you saying java man was a man or an ape? how did you come to this conclusion?

 

[baydoll]

the time issue.

cambrian explosion many millions of years before lucy. you said it refuted the legitimacy of the fossils. I say how?






find something from a scientist who has actually studied the LUCY fossils.

Um no. I said it refuted the legitimacy of Darwin's theory, sweetie.

you see, if the two happened millions of years apart, other than one possibly being a precurser to the other, they have no connection.

They have no connection to what?

you have yet to show that lucy is the skeleton of a chimpanzee. you only have quote someone who HAS NOT STUDIED THE FOSSILS.

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson became probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was “imagination made of plaster of paris”. Leakey said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

Reinforcing the fact that Lucy is not a creature between ape and man, Dr. Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

“The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been.”

 

[baydoll]

as to java man, they had several bones and two sets that seem to be from the same species.

so are you saying java man was a man or an ape? how did you come to this conclusion?

What would you say? Is it a man or an ape?

 

[tommyjones]

Being that she is not missing, no.

I think she's simply another link in the chain.

The Cambrian explosion pretty much destroyed that 'chain' Toxic.

Um no. I said it refuted the legitimacy of Darwin's theory, sweetie.

you can't even keep yourself straight.....




and the lucy and cambrian explosion have no connection to each other.

 

[baydoll]

The flaw in your theory is there is evidence of life existing prior to the Cambrian "Explosion". The "explosion" was not the appearance of all life, just an increase

Stromatolites, stubby pillars built by colonies of microorganisms

Fossils known as acritarchs, almost any small organic walled fossil – from the egg cases of small metazoans to resting cysts of many different kinds of green algae

Doushantuo formation contains 580 million year old microscopic fossils

The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion, not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary diversification may also not have been as rapid. Statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other diversifications in animals' history

It doesn't 'dampen' it in the least. Here's what the record shows: Prior to the Cambrian period were the jellyfish, sponges and worms FULLY FORMED.

Then quite suddenly BOOM! we see representatives of arthropods, modern representations of insects, crabs and the like; modern starfish and sea urchins; chordates which include modern vertebrates and so forth ALL groups appear separately, fully formed, AND at the SAME TIME.

This is totally contrary to Darwin's theory of gradual evolution.

 

[baydoll]

I'm headed out the door but tomorrow I am going to go back through this thread and answer Knuck's post that he wanted me to answer.

In the meantime, have a nice evening people!

 

[tommyjones]

It doesn't 'dampen' it in the least. Here's what the record shows: Prior to the Cambrian period were the jellyfish, sponges and worms FULLY FORMED.

Then quite suddenly BOOM! we see representatives of arthropods, modern representations of insects, crabs and the like; modern starfish and sea urchins; chordates which include modern vertebrates and so forth ALL groups appear separately, fully formed, AND at the SAME TIME.

This is totally contrary to Darwin's theory theory of gradual evolution.

and also counter to what is described in genesis

 

[baydoll]

No it doesn't...
'Sea creatures came first, then birds, then beast of the earth THEN man.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."

23 And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.

25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

 

[baydoll]

And that's it for the day, folks.

Bye!

 

[tommyjones]

No it doesn't...
'Sea creatures came first, then birds, then beast of the earth THEN man.

birds come as a result of the cambrian explosion in the fossil record, not before. so it does indeed counter what genesis says

 

[This_person]

i understnad that all of the evidence isn't in. but the facts of the matter support the theory that evolution has and is happening.
you and others continue to ignore that moany of the fossils do shoe intermediate forms of humans that were more ape like. just because we ahvn't found THE missing link, doesn't mean the theory is wrong.

Once again, you're sticking to humans evolving from humans (or, at least biped animals of some sort). I do not now, nor have I ever, denied that possibility - even potential likelihood of such a thing. My problem continues to be the sponge to human and ficus problem with evolution. It hasn't changed, and acting like I've said something different doesn't mean I have. I'll buy moths more than likely changed color. I'll buy humans live longer, have less hair on their body, and stand taller. I'll even consider buying into sponges to both humans and palm trees if there were a shred of even circumstantial evidence to support it - but there's not.

you use the bible when it suits you, and when it is obviously countered by science you claim it is incomplete and you really do subscribe to its arguments.

I use the Bible to answer people's false claims about it. I do not use the Bible as proof of anything except what the Bible says. And, I generally denote that I am stating what the Bible says, not what ID says, and then reiterate that ID is not Christian in concept, just in arguments from those against.

at least baydoll sticks to one side.

as for your not defedning the

????

 

[This_person]

come on, you complete made up an entire race of people for cain to marry into just so he didn't have to bang his sister- because that doesn't sit well with you.

And, you're making up a sister!

I made no one up. I read what is written, and suggested possible solutions to the source of the missing people (including a sister, since Genesis doesn't mention one of those, either - so suggesting a sister is as "made up" as other people created)

now you are trying to say that adam and eve were cave men that we evolved from, or that god created numerous other subspeices of man- neither of which are in the bible.

I'm not saying that's what Adam and Eve were, I'm suggesting it's a possibility. That it is not in the Bible is meaningless to it's possibility. I am not in the Bible either, but I exist. The Bible is still not a complete book of everything - it still just tells the stories it needs to tell to give you and I the information we need to have. Everything beyond isn't non-existant, it's just not necessary for us to know. That doesn't mean we shouldn't know it if we want, and shouldn't seek it out if we choose - just that we don't need to know it to get the meaning of God. I don't know why this is so hard for you to hold on to, I think I've said this several hundred times.

 

[This_person]

Actually its another Theory.

What is funny is you support the theory of Abiogenesis of Oil, which is the theory your talking about above, while discounting the theory of Abiogenesis of life.

I still don't, and never have, discounted abiogenesis as a potential for the source of life on Earth. I look at it skeptically/critically, as I do Creation. I find the likelihood of abiogenesis to be exceptionally remote, as I do Creation. The statistics just aren't there to presume either is a reasonable, probable answer. And, there is not a lick of evidence to support either claim - which is the basis of my whole argument. I certainly don't dismiss it, but I don't put my faith in the idea that someday it will be provable.

Now, if oil starts to reproduce, and it's offspring sprouts wings, others spring forth gills, grow roots into the ocean floor and mountain plateaus, swims, walks, slithers, and tumbles, I'll buy into a similar abiogenesis of oil as with humans. I don't forsee the likelihood of that, and I doubt you do either.

 

[This_person]

That all these things are called "theories" and "hypothoses" and are treated as such proves my point. Not one element of today's science relies on any of the aforementioned theories (not even biology or applied genetics). And nothing about today's science books will be affected if any of these theories were debunked tomorrow. IOW: None of it is faith-based, and none of it is bad science.

This is point that you refuse to acknowledge.

As for me, I see treating one theory that can't be proven or even tested as science, and another theory that can be proven or even tested as religion as a bias against open thought.

As for me, my goal is not to say evolution is wrong, abiogenesis is wrong, and creation is the only right answer. My goal is to get people to agree that abiogenesis can't be proven, evolution from sponge to human and mosquito can't be proven, and creation can't be proven. And, treating them differently is therefore intellectually dishonest due to a predisposition against one set of thoughts. As I stated before, we needed to come up with a new set of "natural" laws to get sub-atomic observances to work. We have no set of "natural" laws for the first gajillionth of a second of the Big Bang - science already accepts "super"natural concepts provided they don't bring an intelligence with them. To me, that's closed minded.

 

[This_person]

and also counter to what is described in genesis

A) No it doesn't, it goes directly with Genesis 1.

B) ID doesn't teach genesis. It teaches much the same as evolution, abiogenesis, Big Bang, etc., etc., but puts an intelligence designing how it all flows vice random occurances with no meaning. VBS teaches Genesis, ID teaches science with a different theory. Science doesn't even have a theory for the origin of the universe pre-Big Bang, nor does ID, nor does Genesis. Kinda makes 'em all pretty equal

 

[This_person]

birds come as a result of the cambrian explosion in the fossil record, not before. so it does indeed counter what genesis says

We've done good exploration of ocean beds for fossil remains?

How come all the missing fossils will be found if they support evolution, but they're just plain missing if they support anything else?

 

[Toxick]

As for me, I see treating one theory that can't be proven or even tested as science, and another theory that can be proven or even tested as religion as a bias against open thought.

One is based on observed data.

One isn't.

As for me, my goal is not to say evolution is wrong, abiogenesis is wrong, and creation is the only right answer. My goal is to get people to agree that abiogenesis can't be proven, evolution from sponge to human and mosquito can't be proven, and creation can't be proven.

I don't think that anyone disputes this.

The only reason I entered this thread at all was that abiogenesis was referred to as "bad science", and that it is based on faith alone. Nothing I've read since joining the discussion has led me away from believing that these two accusations are false.

 

[Toxick]

Kinda makes 'em all pretty equal

With one glaring exception.



ID makes a huge baseless assumption. It assumes an intelligence, where there is no scientific data providing evidence of its existence.

Big bang and evolution theories do not assume anything. They take accumulated observable data and infers a theory based on those alone.