|
2 registered members (TipmyPip, AndrewAMD),
14,540
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: NITRO777]
#123878
04/20/07 23:59
04/20/07 23:59
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
ooops I forgot that for you creationists thousands ( yes thousands ) fossils of animals showings primitive forms of ears or eyes or wings etc are not an evidence of a step by step improvement Did you realize what you said ? in such a case there is not creator ! I myself I would not be so sure, I thinkk it is unlikely  The scientific methods for dating the age of terrains does count for nothing, of course I wonder however why some layers of terrain contain only some types of fossils and not others ok you have for sure an explanation I fully understand also that you have no time to take care of my education Can I at least expect that your answers ( right or wrong ) are consistent with my post (right or wrong) ? What genetic has to do with my claim "The most advanced form of life very seldom have reached ,using a math expression an "absolute maximum " , rather a "relative maximum" " I meant, that the supposed perfection of the nature is a bloody lie There are thousand ( yes thousand ) of ridicoulus mistakes in the so called "Creation"
Last edited by AlbertoT; 04/21/07 00:00.
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: AlbertoT]
#123879
04/21/07 00:17
04/21/07 00:17
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
Did you realize what you said ? in such a case there is not creator !
I realize what I said, I dont think you realized it though.
Quote:
The scientific methods for dating the age of terrains does count for nothing, of course
I never said that. Remember the "gap theory" and the "old earth creationism" we were talking about?
Quote:
I wonder however why some layers of terrain contain only some types of fossils and not others
I dont dispute that. I dispute that the particular layers form a consistent chronological geologic column.
Quote:
I fully understand also that you have no time to take care of my education
No I do have the time, but I dont think you'd listen even if I did, which would be a WASTE of time.
Quote:
What genetic has to do with my claim
Oh ok, well to be honest I really dont get what you were trying to say through your English is a little rusty  I assumed you meant that human evolution was better than a designer's evolution, but now that I look back I can read that you meant that manmade design is better.However, because this is your overall point:
Quote:
I meant, that the supposed perfection of the nature is a bloody lie
There are thousand ( yes thousand ) of ridicoulus mistakes in the so called "Creation"
Then genetics IS a very relevant argument. You say that the perfection of nature is a lie, however, as I tried to explain to you, the genome is deteriorating from a starting point of perfection. This is a genetics issue. Can I show you evidence of this claim? Of course. I can show you more evidence then you will ever want to know. 
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: NITRO777]
#123880
04/21/07 11:30
04/21/07 11:30
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Quote:
Noone with half a brain is going to accept this as truth just because you say so. Take a minute, find a source, read a book, get something specific.
About elephants and mice
In Africa there is a small mammal , its scientific name is "Elephantulus Edwardii "
The name was given because this small animal is fitted with a proboscis
Obviously zoologists did not even dream any links with elephants even though some other similarities had been already noticed
When molecular comparison became available , researchers were astonished
The genoma of this small mammals is much more similar to the one of the elephant than the one of mices as well as of other small mammmals
Of course you can claim that there is one only designer, the most likely hypothesis is however that the Elephantulus and the Elephants have the same origin
The point is that dimensions are definitly not a key factor as far as evolution is concerned,for the simple reason that a step by step dimension modification is hardly noticiable
Even someone with half brain can grasp this simple concept , the point is that this guy must have at least half brain
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: NITRO777]
#123881
04/21/07 13:02
04/21/07 13:02
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
I assumed you meant that human evolution was better than a designer's evolution...
You say that the perfection of nature is a lie, however, as I tried to explain to you, the genome is deteriorating from a starting point of perfection.
You undertood correctly even though I mixed up two different topics
# Topic 1
Human body produces insuline
Human beings do it much better
Nobody can distinguish natural and artificial insuline but human procedure takes a fraction of energy consumption
# Topic 2
Eyes are supposed to be highly sophisticated devices
Of course they are, but...
The bottom of eye is made of "sensors" trasducing the photons of light into an electromagnetic signal and "wires" trasmitting the signal to optical nerve
You would expect that sensors are in the front part while wires are in the rear part of the eye
The direct opposite
In the middle of the retin there is a small hole
The "wires" must pass through this hole to reach the optical nerve, covering the "sensors"
Please spare me from a remark such as " There is a reason but we dont know "
Some animals have sensors and wires in the right position and their sight is much more efficient than ours
There are a plenty of examples such as # 1 and # 2
No I wont make a list for you, read a book from time to time
Genetic devolution ?
Do you seriously mean that Adam and Eve produced insuline in an efficient way ( same as human beings in lab, nowadays ) and their eyes were as good as the ones of the eagles ?
Come on...
There is no designer, it is evident
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: NITRO777]
#123882
04/21/07 13:29
04/21/07 13:29
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
" I realize what I said, I dont think you realized it though."
No you didn't
Simply ,you, creationits are so fanatic , that you did not even realize that you are fighting against your own religion
Devolutionism...my God
There are also scientific evidences in favour of the existence of a creator while evolutionism itself does not exclude a creator
1) The big bang
An origin suggests a creator
2) The " first 3 minutes "
The original "magma" could turn into atoms and molecules etc
just in case a lot of parameters were set with a very narrow tollerance range
3) The primordial form of life
While evolution is out of discussion the first living being can not be the result of the evolution for obvious reasons
A rough form of organization was necessary
Pure chance can not definitly produce something capable of evolving
Not to mention that 1) and 2) greatly reduces the amount of time at disposal
3) Coscience and intuition
Our brain was supposed to be a sort of super computer
but it is not like that
It is something substantially different
By the way, I think that sooner or later science will solve also above problems but I must admit it is just an emotional attitude
Last edited by AlbertoT; 04/21/07 13:37.
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird evolution: new evidence
[Re: NITRO777]
#123883
04/21/07 13:44
04/21/07 13:44
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
I dont dispute that. I dispute that the particular layers form a consistent chronological geologic column.
And why would those layers not form a consistent chronological geologic column? We know a lot about how these layers are formed, how much time it takes and and and ... we can even 'read' the layers and say how a river originally was flowing through a landscape because of the deposition of layers.
Layers that are deeper are usually older and if they are not older, we can usually see why a layer has been turned 'up-side-down' (there are multiple natural causes that cause this) or sideways. To be honest it's not something that you can dispute, it's simply fact.
Cross-examinations together with multiple dating methods and a common sense theory have already proven the interpretation of layers is 100% correct. Even it's dating is correct, although not 100% accurate. (usually the older, the harder to get an exact date)
Layers that should have been inbetween others but are gone, as you seem to suggest, may indeed be 'washed' away because they might have had a lower resistance, less clay or things like that, however, even that process leaves it's tracks and is well known and studied. Geology really isn't wrong,
Quote:
An origin suggests a creator
Only in a biased mind perhaps.
In nature there is no 'creation' (as in the religious sense), we only see examples of reproduction(in whatever way) when it comes to life. For other things, like stones or mountains we can also see their 'circles of life', but that's no creation either,
Quote:
The original "magma" could turn into atoms and molecules etc
just in case a lot of parameters were set with a very narrow tollerance range
This is another 'not in a million years this could have happened' kind of remark, right? Well, we don't know how much time preceeded this so perhaps for this all to happen it really took a long time before there was an event that was 'just right' and thus it's not that strange that it did happen, not even when the chance would be extremely small. Personally I don't think any calculated 'chance' is more than a guess,
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird :NO evidence
[Re: PHeMoX]
#123884
04/21/07 15:53
04/21/07 15:53
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
I dont really have time to reply now, but I havent given up on it, Im just doing some art-game stuff, designing a better website and trying to clean my computer. Of course you understand. I read your replys though and I will certainly get back to it later.
~Thanks
Last edited by NITRO777; 04/21/07 18:35.
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird :NO evidence
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#123886
04/21/07 20:32
04/21/07 20:32
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
There is really not much point to debatating this issue though. I started this thread just the see what creationists would come up with to attack this evidence. It seems that they have nothing new or substantive, just the same old arguments demanding impossible proof.
Very true. There is no need to continue this debate, we creationists have already shown, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that this "new evidence" is really "no evidence". Thank you gentleman for your time.
|
|
|
Re: Dino/bird :NO evidence
[Re: NITRO777]
#123887
04/21/07 20:49
04/21/07 20:49
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
aaaaaaaahh Matt you offered Nitro a way out Well, actually he did his best An impossible mission
|
|
|
|
