Fangorn; if you actually cited your sources or expanded your argument to specifics (like WHICH of the scientists are 'political flaks') you'd be worth responding to.
Abaddon
JoinedPosts by Abaddon
-
84
OH, THE IRONY OF IT ALL.............Global Warming
by Warlock in"blizzard targets northeast".
"record snow falls for date in chicago".
"hearing on 'warming of planet' cancelled because of ice storms".
-
-
-
84
OH, THE IRONY OF IT ALL.............Global Warming
by Warlock in"blizzard targets northeast".
"record snow falls for date in chicago".
"hearing on 'warming of planet' cancelled because of ice storms".
-
-
Abaddon
Warlock
YOU CANNOT BACK TEST FARTHER BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS. ANYTHING BEYOND THE NUMBERS IS SPECULATION. PLAIN AND SIMPLE...........SPECULATION.
No it isn't. Now, why do you ignore being told how temperatures prior to the 19th C are determined? Rather than research it you call it speculation, and that really isn't fair. The ratio of various isotopes of oxygen varies according to air temperature.Ice contains air bubbles. Therefore old ice allows you to determine the air temperature at the time it froze. Those isotopic ratios (for a givien temperature) are the same today as they were then. It is so NOT speculation.
Your example re. ATT; you can only get their records as long as ATT existed, just like you can only get temperture recors from weather stations as long as they existed. But just as weather existed before weather stations, and can be measured using things other than thermometer reading at weather stations, so to did communication 'stocks' exist before ATT, and the value of the commodities available in the past can be neasured by things other than the share price of ATT.
The ice cores come mostly from Antarctica and Greenland, but are backed up by ice cores from mountain glaciers... in the space of a few decades many of these mountain glaciers have become unviable for taking ice cores from... as they are melting...
http://www.chem.hope.edu/~polik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
How come you are assuming we are all so stupid that we believe made-up stories? And yourself so smart that STILL without investigating the facts you consider yourself capable of having an informed opinion?
It's like me holding forth about the stock market (about which I know next-to-nothing) and telling YOU you are wrong by saying things you know (being knowledgable about the stock market) simply are not true.
I think you'd find me doing that silly and unreasonable.
Qcmbr
We have concrete GROUND based temperatures from 1850 nothing further back - nothing just best guesses - this is very, very different to hard facts. We are having 'faith' that the scientists stories are correct before that point. One hard fact I know about is that if you head up north in the UK you'll see glacial features from a time when the temperature was extremelly cold - a mere 11000 odd years ago - there is something very powerful causing cycles in temperature and it isn't man.
And the accurate air temperature records we have from both hemispheres mean nothing? Are you saying that ground temperature and air temperature are unlinked? That the Earth has under-floor heating prehaps? Why do you say "there is something very powerful causing cycles in temperature and it isn't man" when no one is saying that man is the ONLY influence on temperature?
Rather than producing simplistic responses that either imply you believe stuff I don't think you can prove (air and ground temperatures are unlinked), or which ignore the claims being made (man is NOW altering temperature) to make fallacious implications?
2 - Deriving global temperatures from ice cores is a very inexact science since by its definition it relies upon guessing what the data means. The chicken little brigade ignore that data anyway which suggests that the interglacial perods (15-20 000 years according to our theories) happen fairly frequently and temperature fluctuations (not man made) move enough to freeze most of this planet's northen landmass and then warm to our current temperature. Following this pattern we should realise that our society is on a very short tenure since we are 'due' another period of freezing. Global warming if manmade and sustainable is going to save us! Try imagine feeding and housing 10 billion people when swathes of Europe and North America is frozen solid.
Please show how isotopic detemination of air temperature using ice cores is 'guessing what the data means'. You saying it doesn't mean it is true, and unles you have good evidence I'd rather believe experts. And again, misrepresentation. Please show me an example of interglacial cycles being ignored in the work of climate researchers working on current temperature trends.
3 - Up until the 1970's our data was telling us that global temperatures where falling - what short memories we have - after that time the temperatures rose and yet all our graphs magically start to prove a steady increase in warming. If all the supporters of man made global warming want to explian the mistake that enamoured the scientific community and caused them to cry that we were all due a freeze and then explain how they could all have been so wrong then please do so. In the meantime let's all start suggesting they are infallible again even though they have flipped there position. Getting sucked once into a cult that flips doctrines just isn't enough for some people! I may sound harsh here but I'm just illustrating that the same thing is happening here. Scientific community preaches one thing - flips doctrine and preaches another using the same data to prove both with some new light to justify the flip go figure. Me - I don't care how many people say that the earth is flat - I'll wait and see what happens when someone goes off and tries to sail off the edge.
If you had actually read up on the subject you'd know why what you refer to was thought by some and why temerature were a they were then. Of coure, you will now be indignant that when you show by your statements that you don't know something, rather thn being embaressed you are acting authoratative on a subject you've not researched adequately. Why the arrogance Qc?
4 - There is a great desire to believe we are highly effective at controlling our environment and on a micro level we are masters but when it comes to global effects we just don't figure and we like to think we do. If global warming has some swith that we as humans can flip by simply increasing gas levels by a tiny fraction then it's already too late and all this talk about stopping global warming is just repentant waffle, you can't put the horse back in the stable unless anyone can think of a way to convince us all to live without power and can find a way to remove the gas that somehow is causing the issue. How stupid are we. Clean up pollution by all means, reduce emissions by being more efficient fine but stop pretending that we can play with the global thermostat by paying twice as much for products and taxing car usage - its not going to happen.
Half right and half wrong. WE have already screwed things up and probably have upto fifty years of upward trends even with realsitic controls. The UK could close down tomorrow, and the growth of China would equal the emmissions saved by the UK closing in TWO YEARS. But acting like financial incentives can't help control car use et.al. is like pretending the rise in cigarette cost doen't help ontrol useage.
5 - Models of climate change are models not facts, they crunch the data and burn vast amounts of cpu time and yet the very nature of modelling chaos systems is that your results show one of an uncountable possible outcomes. Over a long enough time order does arrive from chaos (the 'little ice age' cycle is the counterpart to our warm cycle we are in now - sample your majoity data at the peak of a warm cycle by all means but stop extrapolating forward as though temperatures will keep rising.) There is nothing so stupid as the hockey stick graph of temperature that we see trotted out by global warming reports - we are all aware that every system has checks and balances that stop things running away into mathematical progressions (e.g. sure there is a flu season but that flu season is matched by a decline in flu) so it is with temperature, if it rises sharply that induces negative feedbacks at some point that reverese the trend and generate the cycle.
"sample your majoity data at the peak of a warm cycle by all means but stop extrapolating forward as though temperatures will keep rising" - This is such a blatent misrepresentation I'd almost call it lying. Please show me the forcings that are causing climate change at this time. Come on, you think you know enough, show it.
There is nothing so stupid as the hockey stick graph of temperature that we see trotted out by global warming reports -
Just as when in a discussion with an ID supporter they say 'irreducable complexity" you know they don't have direct knowledge but are parrotting arguments they believe to be valid, but which have since been rebutted, so to in discussions of climate change you know someone is way behind on the facts.
6 - I'll happily bet that we are reaching the end of a mini warm cycle (40 odd years since the last cooling mini cycle that ended in the 70's) and from 2010 onwards temperatures will drop and we'll find another story from the scientists to believe.
What you bet is irrelevent unless you can show the forcings that are making what you claim is happening happen.
Now this is the bit where you get angry, and refuse to how any facts...
-
92
Need some education on THEOLOGY? Start here! Evolutionists take note!
by LittleToe inhttp://www.monergism.com/systematic.html.
http://www.rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcftoc.htm.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.htmlhttp://www.lgmarshall.org/reformed/berkhof_summary.html.
-
-
Abaddon
Ross
I understand this. Empathy would reveal that a Creationist might feel a similar way about evolution due to missing links, etc.. My point is merely that both are ignorant starting points to enter into a discussion.
Oh, this was my take from my first post on the thread, to approach it as I perceive some Creationist's approach threads about evolution. That was the empathy bit. The being a bastard bit was me getting picky about the need for special vocabulary being rather one sided in the example you gave, if you think about it.
I totally agree that ANYONE wanting to have proper conversation about theology requires to learn the vocab.
Regardless of the substance of the subject matter, on a regular basis Christians get taken to task for their beliefs.
Hmmm? Weeeeeell. I would say that mostly 'they' get taken to task for when they seem to be using beliefs with no factual basis to insist they are right in the face of contradictory evidence. I don't see this as being either surprising or a big deal, except maybe to those it happens to.
As many don't ever do this (ignore evidence), or even accept what those other Christians might not, I don't think 'regulary' passes muster.
Very few atheists would care to barge into a discussion about transubstansiation (which they'd probably make an ass of themselves in as they don't know the terms etc., or not take seriously because they don't believe in god).
Thus it may seem to be always happening to theists and not to atheists, but it would do as it tends to be theists (of a very silly and minority faction) who barge into discussions about transitionals with their facts and terminology all awry. And we all know how often that happens.
How come theology seems to be defined as a 'Christian' science? Even people who worship rocks have a theology... or is that geotheology? Theogeology? But you know what I mean.
Two scientists in the same field will share a vocabulary. Is the vocabulary of Islamic, Vedic or Buhhdist theology the same?
Scientists require this when engaging in discussions about evolution, and rightly so. Its a shame to see this not reciprocated when folks attempt to engage in discussion (or is it merely attack) of Christian beliefs. Most of the contributions to these subjects show a woeful ignorance, demonstrating vestiges of a WTS education.
I actually don't see that many serious debates about theology on this board between atheists and theists (or Christians given the examples of theology we have been shown). Debates about the existence of god? Yes, but you don't need theological vocabulary for that. Various arguments from design et. al. vs Evolution, but again you don't need a theological vocabulary for that.
A specialised vocabulary is only neccesary when theists are discussing a religious tradition they share - unless different religous trandtions share many terms.
Ignorant (and I don't mean any of this in a pejorative sense) creationists make fools of themselves in discussions on evolution and ignorant [usually] atheists [often] make fools of themselves in discussions on beliefs.
... agreed with above caveats.
-
92
Need some education on THEOLOGY? Start here! Evolutionists take note!
by LittleToe inhttp://www.monergism.com/systematic.html.
http://www.rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcftoc.htm.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.htmlhttp://www.lgmarshall.org/reformed/berkhof_summary.html.
-
-
Abaddon
Ross
The rub is that Creationists and creationists and ID-ers alike need to know some facts and special terms to converse about Evolution. There is something to discuss; dem bones dem bones dem dry bones.
A theologian might feel that the lack of vocabulary on the part of a evolutionist would limit their appreciation of the subtleties of theology. They'd be right.
An atheist thinks the lack of god limits their requirement for special god-discussing vocabulary.
You have to have car mechanics before you need special language to discuss car mechanics and their attributes. If someone can't prove the existence of atoms to you, you're not going to require the special terms used to discuss Quantum Mechanics and Quarks. I suppose a Sasquatchologist might require special terms to discuss Sasquatches, but
-
84
OH, THE IRONY OF IT ALL.............Global Warming
by Warlock in"blizzard targets northeast".
"record snow falls for date in chicago".
"hearing on 'warming of planet' cancelled because of ice storms".
-
-
Abaddon
Kudra
Cool post
Warlock
Okay, the 100 whatever years is referring to what length of time we have temp record from climate stations. But using ice cores we can get temperatures from far further back.
If you were having a discussion about baseball, and I asked where the Quarterback was, you'd know I knew too little about baseball to really have an informed opinion. I wouldn't be stupid or a bad guy. I would just not know about baseball. I don't think you are stupid or a bad guy, I think you just don't know about global warming, coz of what you say. I didn't five years ago, not really.
The choice to do independent research is yours. You don't have to agree with Global Warming, but at least you'd be able to argue knowledgably and maybe even convince some people.
-
92
Need some education on THEOLOGY? Start here! Evolutionists take note!
by LittleToe inhttp://www.monergism.com/systematic.html.
http://www.rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcftoc.htm.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.htmlhttp://www.lgmarshall.org/reformed/berkhof_summary.html.
-
-
Abaddon
Interesting links.
This word 'god' keeps on popping up.
I was trying to figuring out what they meant and found this;
There is but one only living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him; and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
Golly. Quite an impressive chap. I especially liked the semi-colon after passions. Whilst one wouldn't expect to bump into him, on account of the invisable spirit no body thing, one would expect to have come across evidence of such an entity. I mean, it's an 'ology, after all. Reading further I see;
That there is but one God is proved --
(1.) From the fact that every argument that establishes the being of God, suggests the existence of but one. There must be one First Cause, but there is no evidence of more than one. There must be one Designing Intelligence and one Moral Governor, but neither the argument from design nor from conscience suggests more than one.PROOF?! (You have to say this like Lady Bracknel says "A handbag?!"). Okay, it says god is proved by 'every argument that establishes the being of god', and then goes in for an exclusivity bid.
And the actual argument that establishes the being of god is what, exactly? I saw where the Queen went, nice try, no banana.
This First Cause business. Weeeeeeeell. What First Caused the First Cause? If there must be one, well, there must be one, QED. There has to be a rabbit IN the hat for a rabbit to come OUT the hat. You'd have lots and lots of First Causes. Try infinate recursion. Kind of buggers the argument from design too.
One Designing Intelligence. That sounds a bit sinister. Designing. But seriously, 'there must be' isn't an argument.
And Moral Governer. An ernest chap out of Dickens perhaps? With a flat cap?
Very interesting stuff though, and all well to those that find it interesting. I feel it does need a bit more work on it though, it is rough round the edges, lacks proof, and fails to account for similar bids for excusivity by varients of the same idea. Yup, gaps, too many gaps to be a convincing theory, and no archaelogical evidence either.
(I know I'm missing the point entirely, it just seemed funny to do a reverse angle)
With all this interest maybe there is something in it afterall?
Does seem a remarkable amount to write and know about something that is incomprehensible though.
-
178
Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!
by Seeker4 inperry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.
axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!
i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.
-
-
Abaddon
Qc
Interesting question. I would say they are just doing directly what has been done indirectly for thousands of years; practising unnatural selection. Thus Evolution.
I don't think pug dogs or glowing mice are particulary likely to arise by natural selection. But generations of selecting what genes would be passed on is just like making sure mice got passed genes to make them glow.
On reflection I think glowing mice could be the ultimate cat-toy...
-
156
Is Atheism/Evolutionism Dangerous? Questions for Unbelievers
by Perry indoes the belief that there is no all-loving diety in which to be accountable to make it easier or harder to treat and judge others they way that you want to be treated and judged?.
since evolution supposes that life and ultimately man who is at the top of the chain got here through a process of the fittest dominating and killing off the weaker, and since most modern evolutionists in democracies no longer think that this is good to practice, how do you deal with the fact that you are a living contradiction of your own belief since you pronounce the same thing both good and bad?
.
-
-
Abaddon
ellderwho
Isn't it funny that Hillary told you to read what he said in context, and described how, and you just quote the entire paragraph with a highlight, deliberatLely ignoring his reaMonable request so asto prove some point?
Perry
I am of God now. He lives inside me by means of the new spirit He put in me. When I read the bible, many times my spirit confirms what is true therefore providing two witnesses.... the word and the spirit. God speaks through both. That is my testimony to you. Millions of others would testify the same to you. I'm not lying.
Yawn. And millions of people of other religious traditions or the same religious tradition as you who believe things that contradict what you believe are just as convinced about the internal validaion they get.
So god has multiple personalities? Or is he dicking with people in India making them think cows are holy? Or you are the right one? I reckon you should have a get together with all the other people who believe they are the right one through internal validation. It would be a blood-bath.
Oh, you mention born again and also say "You can create an illusion of righteousness and justify yourself". Aren't those two things the same? Isn't the idea of 'once saved always saved' the ultimate in moral convenience?
You seem to equate your opinions and beliefs being scutinised with putting god on trial. Don't you feel that is self-idolatry, seeing criticism of your thoughts and opinion as criticism of god?
If I remember correctly you were into Calvanistic-style presuppositionalism last time you came here. That holds that god has already determined the elect, and naturally you were one of them. Now you're born again with a similar form of self-validation. You were a Dubbie, weren't you? Seems you are going through a set of religions that whilst presenting man as worthless are actually egoistical in the extreme by their insistence that their unfounded beliefs (i.e. their opinions) are in line with gods requirements.
What greater vanity can anyone have than claiming to know the mind of god?
Deputy Dog
Enough with the worthless routine. It isn't convincing. To you, maybe... but to me as you are so sure you are right purely on the basis of internal factors you on some levels value the worth of your own reasoning above all else. How can you claim to be worthless when you effectively worship your unprovable opinion?
-
178
Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!
by Seeker4 inperry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.
axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!
i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.
-
-
Abaddon
What is rather funny tetra is the lack of perspective shown.
As I try and point out in my gull story, and as you point out when you say our genome is not aware of speciation, often when people say transitions are problematical or missing it is an indicator of a discontinuous mind, as Dawkins puts it.
The genetic validation of cladistically derived 'family trees' is also something that many don't seem to get the significance of. If evolution was made up, it was done pretty well, as they made up what was later proved by totally different evidence.
And this 'I can't see it' approach to denial is exccesively simplistic and again illustrative of an almost willful ignorance over the timescale evolution happens over; "mountains don't erode because I can't see it!!"
And when you look at the doubts and denials, and see what is proposed as a replacement; it's like someone throwing out Newtonian Gravity and shrugging when asked why objects falls, or alternately saying fairies pull things down.
Evolution theory is NOT 100% right. It will be twiddled with and new discoveries will be made. But so far it has not been proven wrong, and even if it makes some believers insecure is still the only theory in town.
Creationism is essentially a conspiracy theory (naughty scientists decieve the world!). So is Holocaust Denial. Both are demonstably wrong. Both have extreme followers. And both also have otherwise reasonable people reckoning "where there is smoke there is fire".
People who are not neo-Nazis but will wonder if it was all that many...
People who are not creationists but will put far too much weight behind the doubts of Creationists.
And this 'open mind' stuff is annoying. Science HAS to be open minded. It can be truculent and slow at times, but if new facts are discovered it WILL re-write the textbooks. This HAPPENS. How can a discipline;
- that re-writes texts books as new discoveries are made
- that uses a process of peer review where even papers supporting 'convential wisdom' are read by experts who try to find errors
- that spends millions on research
... be closed minded?
ANY evolutionary scientist who could disprove evolution WOULD as doing so would mean they joined the ranks of very few sceintists who are house-hold names.
-
178
Need Some Education On EVOLUTION? Start Here! Perry & Axal take note!
by Seeker4 inperry started a thread on evolution/atheism, which from his very first post showed an incredible ignorance of evolution and natural selection.
axal's comments on the thread were just asinine - how all the atheists in his area were at the strip clubs fighting over women and fornicating!
i have to say that i live in a small town and have been here for half a century, and i couldn't name five people that i know here who are atheist.
-
-
Abaddon
RAF
You don't seem to get what I mean or I am expressing myself badly;
- I support a theory because of the evidence supporting it.
- There are no other theories that match the evidence even remotely as well.
- There are loads of hypotheses with no evidence, but they don't interest me as they have no evidence.
Thus for everyday purpses, I regard the theory as a fact.
Just like I would regard a cow in my living room and a hole in my roof as the product of a bizzare animal handling accident on an airplane as a fact for everyday purposes, even if my next door neighbour told me aliens put it there or an angel delivered it.
I might be wrong about Evolution. I might be wrong about the origin of the cow. But it's not particulary likely.
Everyboby can believe in what they want since it doesn't hurt?
Yes, tell that to the victims of religious violence, tell that to families broken by cults. How can you say beliefs don't hurt? Maybe you don't mean the sort of beliefs that lead to religous violence or other damage, but those damaging beliefs are ALWAYS supported by an insistence that unfounded opinion is worth more than evidence.
I don't know what you would ask. You might ask whatever question comes to your mind to explore if my reasonning makes sens to you ...
Good answer. You are paying attention ;-)
But actually it is far simpler. I would ask for evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law or a science lab.
And you are not applying the same standards.
You have a belief which you cannot prove and have no evidence or theory of. You accept this without question.
I have a theory with evidence that supports it. Without even bothering to really learn about the subject (I am not being mean, this statement is based upon the knowledge you display, not one your ninterpreation of that knowledge) you decide that the theory is wrong, yet have no other explanation for the evidence that we see.
If you applied the standards you apply to evolutionary theory to your own beliefs, you would have to question your own beliefs. You are applying a massive double standard.
Now, I am very happy for you to have your beliefs. I just take exception to someone denying what are regarded as facts in court of law (in at least Australia and the US this has effectively happened) when they keep slipping up and shopping they don't know the subject as well they think they do.
I don't know why you cannot be happy with 'our' theory, as it's not like you have anything to replace it, as god could make the world any damn way he liked and still exist. This insistence that RAF and Apostate Kate and others are right and all those silly scientists are wrong seems to stem from something but I can't out my finger on it. For a panthiest your level of insistence on evolutionary error is, well, unique in my experience.
As for links, well, here are some links about links;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/Please ask any questions about these articles you might have. And please don't compromise your intelligence by making ludicous claims about there being no 'archaelogoical' evidence of evoluton, there's a large museum full of it in most major cities.
I also have to thank another poster for sharing this with me;
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_8_115/ai_n16807321/pg_1
This 'proves' common descent of many species. Basically once an animal stops using a gene, the gene gets eroded by errors as it isn't needed for survival and thus has no selection pressure to maintain it. But we can still see these eroded non-functional genes. For example, whales and dolphins don't see in colour as it is useless to see in colour below a few metres depth. However, they still carry the eroded non-functional genes for colour vision they inherited from their terrestial ancestors who had colour vision.
But I fear what you want to prove links is the same as me saying I want proof of mountain erosion.
Someone could take me to the mountain and show me cracks in rocks and pebbles and sand, wind and water. But I could say this was not proof of erosion unless I could SEE the mountain getting smaller.
If I said this someone who knew about geology would find me most unreasonable, as no one can see the erosion of mountains due to the time scale it happens on. Most people would think I was ignoring the evidence of erosion all around me.
I fear that I can show you the equivalent of cracks in rocks and pebbles and sand, wind and water, but unless you see a dog turn into a cat you won't accept the evidence. What am I meant to think about that attitude?
And I am still smiling and being nice, I'm just challenging you; I am disappointed you don't want your beliefs challenged - one thing the JW experience taught us is that truth need not hide or run away from examination. Why do you run away from examining your truth?
More they will have means to research and more they will find ways to explain the process that we already know about evolution capacities (But not links to lead a species to another, and scientists really need that to make this entire theory credible – but we miss archaeologist material here … that’s the problem – if they have been able to find several types (but not compatible to bread – since they have means to state about that … So …it doesn’t help them) it just means that those types could have been animals/species who disappeared like Dinosaurs – that’s way back – and we have proof for that … So … where is the proof in what we are talking about to make the entire thing ok as a real proof? … )
Look, when they started digging up fossils and recognising them for what they were, they arranged the skeletons in family trees. Obviously some mistakes were made and sometimes new evidence made them shuffle stuff about.
But they have never found a pentadactyl tetrapod in the Ordovian (or anything 'out-of-place' that would disprove the general theory). Thus cladistic (bone-based) theories of descent were the best match to evidence.
Then we discover genetics. And for those animals that we can obtain DNA samples from (either still alive or recently extinct) guess what? In the vast majority of cases the family trees made on the basis of bones were proved by genetics.
We can see (if you read above article) the traces of long-disused eroded genes that show genes are passed on, and if they don't get used will decay but still provide a trail proving descent.
Now, you are yet to come up with one reason WHY you refuse to accept the evidence for links; you write as though you think there is none, which makes me wonder how much you do know about the subject
So, rather than taking the easy option of vaugely saying 'there is no proof', why not show us just how flimsy evolutionary theory is by attacking in a specific fashion? Above you have loads of evidence that you can examine concerning specific links, and come back with the reasons why you don't accept it.
Like I say, I am afraid at the end of the day the fact I cannot show you a dog turn into a cat (not that I say this happened, it is an example of change) will make you say it's not proof.
But you know what? Mountains will still erode even if I say they don't because I cannot see it happen.
Happy Valentines all the same
Gyles
Apostate Kate
What, no answers? Can you only answer the questions you have a URL for, or a stock reply?
This is not a debate board but a discussion board and it is good that we can keep it respectful. Why do you feel the need to refute someone anyway? Why not a calm respectful discussion?
LOL. Pot. Kettle. Black. I've often seen your responses in these sort of threads but normally ignore them as you always seem to be screaming off a soapbox; and I will C&P examples if you deny this. Yup, I put things forcefully too, but I don't pretend otherwise.
If YOU weren't refuting someone with your C&P, what were you doing? Applying a double standard is the only thing I can find evidence for... Oh, debate doesn't mean rude, why imply a falsehood? Discussion doesn't preclude disagreement, so why make it sound like it cannot take place?
And Apostate Kate, what some random 'evolutionist' (what University and what specialism? What class of degree?) may or may not have said to you is irrelvent. There are thousands of pages (4.7 million actually) that come up with thermodynamics as a search term. I BET you the only ones which say evolution violates the 2nd law are those which support creationism et.al..
Despite claiming you go for a non-biased view you mistake a comment, or take a mistake someone made, and use this as a basis of an attack on evolution, ignoring that the vast majority of references on the subject (for this read all the credible ones) and accepting the claims of a tiny biased minority, most of whom aren't even physicists. Why?
You mention scientific error. Why? What is wrong with science changing its mind about something if evidence is available which supports it changing its mind?
And how can you have the gall to say you know anything about the subject or go for unbiased sources when you say things like;
It is full of extinct species, get it, extinct species. Species that did not adapt.
Where do I begin? Some of those species indeed ALL died out as they couldn't survive in a new situation. Other times entire species evolved into a new species so would appear as dying out as they did. Other times portions of the total population evolved into new species, and other portions died out, in both cases making it look like the original species dying out as it did.
Just because species CAN adapt doesn't mean they do so succesfully. You are implying evolutionary theory makes a claim it does not, which you could only do if you knew very little about the subject.
So far, as also pointed out above, by your own mistakes you are making it obvious you are an outspoken critic (nothing wrong with that) of a subject you don't know enough about to reliably make a post on without making mistakes, not of opinion but of fact (which is just making you look silly all by your own actions).
Today we have humans riddled with diseases and getting sicker and sicker with more fatal mutations occurring not less.
Evolution if a true scientific law would be evident across the board, all living things would be subject to it.It is; I am surprised for someone so well versed in evolution that you seem unaware of the proofs that human populations do evolve following the theory of natural selection. How do you account for this gap in your knowledge?
Instead it is common sense that says all life is subject to the 2nd law, entropy and will die.
Wrong. Go talk to a physicist if you can put your arrogance on hold for 1 minute.
Now, lets see if you can answer simple questions; please account for dolphins and whales having inactive decayed forms of the genes for colour vision.
Please tell me what proves your personal theory of origins... I assume that as such a well-read critic of evolution you have of course a theory with evidence of a standard acceptable in a reasonable venue? It would be unthinkable you wouId be hypocritical enough to attack a theory when you don't even have one yourself.
My opinion on the different skulls are that they all were either simian or human. When I was a child I was taught and believed that Neanderthal was a hairy ape man. Then later I learned that they buried their dead with flowers and other information was unearthed.
Look at yourself; you KNOW that MORE INFORMATION was DISCOVERED, and ATTACK evolutionists for changing their ideas! How unreasonable can you get. Oh, and the above change in estimation of H. neander' didn't ever threaten the basic principles of evolutionary theory. One H. erectus in a era of A. rama would. The fact you think this put evolution in peril is you again illustrating you are pontificating about a subject you show little knowledge of.
Neanderthal now is believed to have been fully human and intermarried with people from other regions that did not have the pronounced brow ridge.
There is one set of evidence that MAY support this but it is not agreed with by all. We do KNOW that there is no proof of such interbreeding other than claudistic comparison as we have mDNA profiles for H. neander'ad H. sap' and there is no link. If you knew as much as you claim you would explain this evidence differently.
Some scientists think that apes and man interbred. That is stupid to me. It can't happen today, it did not happen then.
I'd love to see the qualifications of people making such claims and when they made them. Please provide it so I can show either (by ommission of proof) you are lying or are quoting claims made ages ago/by unqualified people.
I still have not heard the logical explanation for the Human Genome Project tracing human DNA back to the first humans and ending there with a tribe in Africa. Wouldn't DNA be traceable all the way back to chimps?
Hysterical. Please understand I don't expect YOU to change your mind as I have had enough discussions on this board to develop a nose for it. You probably won't even reply, LOL.
I am VERY aware (as people tell me) that threads like this are pivotal in making those who are willing to be open minded about the subject examine the evidence.
And as you show very clearly what side reason, knowledge and evidence is on all I really have to do is keep you 'proving' how wrong evolution is and then supply Cliff Notes for YOU to convince fence-sitters and even some who believe in ID or Creation that evolution is worth looking at again by your comprehensive lack of knowledge and continual errors. This is not an insult, it's describing your behaviour. By all means show my claims about your errors are false.
Going back to your above comment, it is funny how you use evidence supporting evolution (human genome project) to make a claim that shows massive ignorance about the subject, as geentic evidnece also shows the vast similarity between us and the Great Apes. If aliens did the classifying of species they would probably put us and Chimps in the same grouping, H. trog and H. sap.
There are gaps, big gaps that cannot be explained away with, "look at the similarities they prove we evolved" bunk. Where is the DNA trail?
In books about the genetic evidence for evolution. Read one.
I have heard theories to explain the gap such as "the gaps are in the missing link's DNA" which opens up a whole new set of questions. If macro evolution works then how and why did entire species die off? gaps gaps gaps....
And there as well as showing despite your 'massive knowledge' of evolution you think it claims species never die out (WRONG)., LyYou also have shown you don't understand fossilisation!
In order for macro evolution to work we would see transitional species today.
AH, and mountains don't erode because you can't see it happen? LOL