What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

Meatballsub said:
This is Post 110, Neanderthal are not considered human ancestors, but a different species altogether. Out of Africa has nothing to do with Neanderthal.
Click to expand...

It does because, all non-Africans have 4% of Neanderthal DNA, which makes Neanderthal as ancestors (at least by research) which disproves Out of Africa of AHM theory.
 
Meatballsub said:
You can believe that, and I have no qualms about that. Though Evolution is supported by the scientific method, and so is common descent, where your position isn't.
Click to expand...

No, Evolution is not supported by any scientific method. A scientific method involves experimentation, testable and verifiable results. All what is found as evidence is for "micro-evolution" which are just variations is not what evolution is all amount. A micro-evolution evidence does not count as evidence for macro-evolution.
 
felix said:
It does because, all non-Africans have 4% of Neanderthal DNA,
Click to expand...
You are going to have to source this.
which makes Neanderthal as ancestors (at least by research) which disproves Out of Africa of AHM theory.
Click to expand...
No, Considering that All humans have Cromag genes, and that even with some evidence of interbreeding with Neanderthal by non native Africans, this makes sense because Neanderthal is not native to Africa. Neanderthal existed at the same time as Cromag Man. The direct ancestor to humans.
 
felix said:
I think my point didn't get across well.

Let me explain:
Any specimen that is fossilized will begin decay from whatever ratio of isotope present in the world from that moment of it's creation. Thus, any antediluvian era fossil (that is before Noah's flood), where there is very little radiation, very little isotopes were found on earth. Since all specimens after Noah's flood have more isotopes than the pre-flood, today, the more generation of isotopes is considered to be a constant. Hence, based on this assumption, radiometric dating will always consider little isotopes in samples to be "left over" from decay rather than considering the fact that it could also be what is actually generated or the original amount created from radiation.
Click to expand...
This still makes no sense. If radioisotopes were absent from the 'pre-flood' era (never mind the absence of evidence for any flood at all), then measuring dates from radioisotopes that only emerged post-flood can only return consistently young dates. Also, short-lived radioisotopes should not be bent from the geological record, and yet they are. Can you also explain how radioisotopes were created 'post-flood' and provide your supporting evidence?
As I already explained, there is not a single dating method that dates without RM dating. There is no glacier layers nor any tree rings that give a start date. It is always calculated base don RM dating and then the rings or varves are counted. Having a wring start date will always give a false date.
Click to expand...
Nope, you explained nothing. You simply asserted this to be the case, an assertion that is blatantly false and unsupported. Varve sequencing dates from at least half-a-century before RM dating was developed, so his alone shws how little you understand of these methodologies.
 
felix said:
No, Evolution is not supported by any scientific method. A scientific method involves experimentation, testable and verifiable results.
Click to expand...
It is really easy to test the theory of evolution, and I have had to do it in college biology classes.
All what is found as evidence is for "micro-evolution" which are just variations is not what evolution is all amount.
Click to expand...
No, the is exactly what evolution is. Evolution is adaptation through natural selection, and various other selection pressures.
A micro-evolution evidence does not count as evidence for macro-evolution.
Click to expand...
What I find interesting, is the only people who make such a big hullabaloo over the difference between micro and macro evolution are young earth creationist. The only difference biologists see is time scale. That is about it. All evidence that applies to micro evolution, applies to macro evolution.

Especially considering the only real difference between the Micro evolution of Pigeon species, vs the Macro Evolution of the Dinosaur splitting off into Avian is time scale. Both of which is just a branch off of original species trees.
 
lordkalvan said:
This still makes no sense. If radioisotopes were absent from the 'pre-flood' era (never mind the absence of evidence for any flood at all), then measuring dates from radioisotopes that only emerged post-flood can only return consistently young dates. Also, short-lived radioisotopes should not be bent from the geological record, and yet they are. Can you also explain how radioisotopes were created 'post-flood' and provide your supporting evidence?

Nope, you explained nothing. You simply asserted this to be the case, an assertion that is blatantly false and unsupported. Varve sequencing dates from at least half-a-century before RM dating was developed, so his alone shws how little you understand of these methodologies.
Click to expand...

I think quite honestly, you have no idea how radio metric dating works. Inspite me explaining clearly, you never seem to have understood even the basics of RM dating.
 
Meatballsub said:
It is really easy to test the theory of evolution, and I have had to do it in college biology classes. No, the is exactly what evolution is. Evolution is adaptation through natural selection, and various other selection pressures. What I find interesting, is the only people who make such a big hullabaloo over the difference between micro and macro evolution are young earth creationist. The only difference biologists see is time scale. That is about it. All evidence that applies to micro evolution, applies to macro evolution.

Especially considering the only real difference between the Micro evolution of Pigeon species, vs the Macro Evolution of the Dinosaur splitting off into Avian is time scale. Both of which is just a branch off of original species trees.
Click to expand...

As I already mentioned earlier in this thread, "time scale" can easily be brought down using single celled organism which has a generation time of just 17 minutes, and even after 50000 generations done in labs over several years, no new species is found. I already discussed this earlier and I don't want to grind the same flour again and again. The experiment is still on and E-coli is still E-coli. You can go back to those posts in the same thread and address my points there.
 
felix said:
I think quite honestly, you have no idea how radio metric dating works. Inspite me explaining clearly, you never seem to have understood even the basics of RM dating.
Click to expand...
Nope, what I don't understand is your garbled 'explanation' of what you think RM dating amounts to and the complete absence of any evidence in your posts that supports anything you claim about it. I also don't understand why you simply ignore most of my responses to your posts, for example in the most recent instance the refutation of your assertion that 'there is not a single dating method that dates without RM dating'. So before accusing others of not understanding, I think you would be advised to inform your own obvious and blatant misunderstandings on a range of subjects discussed in this thread.
 
felix said:
As I already mentioned earlier in this thread, "time scale" can easily be brought down using single celled organism which has a generation time of just 17 minutes, and even after 50000 generations done in labs over several years, no new species is found. I already discussed this earlier and I don't want to grind the same flour again and again. The experiment is still on and E-coli is still E-coli. You can go back to those posts in the same thread and address my points there.
Click to expand...
And the E.coli experiments amply demonstrate evolutionary processes in action. I can well understand why you wish to deny this obvious conclusion, however, by attacking irrelevant strawmen.
 
lordkalvan said:
Nope, what I don't understand is your garbled 'explanation' of what you think RM dating amounts to and the complete absence of any evidence in your posts that supports anything you claim about it. I Los don't understand why you simply ignore most if my responses to your posts, for example in the most recent instance the refutation of your assertion that 'there is not a single dating method that dates without RM dating'. So before accusing others of not understanding, I think you would be advised to inform your own obvious and blatant misunderstandings on a range of subjects discussed in this thread.
Click to expand...

You speak a lot of garbage but no content.

I explained it well and explained even how RM dating is flaws on its assumption. However, you never took a single pain in even addressing a single bit of it. Your response was "garbled 'explanation'". let me know how it is garbled 'explanation' and let me also know what you understand as RM dating.

Also, there is not a single glacier layer taken for half a kilometre and nor any varves exists for miles. I repeatedly addressed that they RM date the first and then count years but you repeatedly say I never addresses it. If you think you know any dating method that does not use RM dating, please let me know and how dates are arrived (every step of it).
 
lordkalvan said:
And the E.coli experiments amply demonstrate evolutionary processes in action. I can well understand why you wish to deny this obvious conclusion, however, by attacking irrelevant strawmen.
Click to expand...

Nope. E-coli is still E-coli.
 
felix said:
Now, you have to source this.
Click to expand...
What am I sourcing exactly? That I prefer peer reviewed journals to popular press?

However, 4% neanderthal dna is not the only evidence.

As I already posted earlier, I am posting it again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL1USVvPdow
Click to expand...
Your source is a you tube video that is unsourced itself. I would like to see the peer review of this in a journal to see what other biologists have found from examining the remains.
 
felix said:
Nope. E-coli is still E-coli.
Click to expand...
Birds are still dinosaurs. Humans are still Hominids, who are still apes, who are sill mammals, who are still warm blooded, which are still chordates, which is still an animal, which is still a living organisms.

At this, point the conversation has now just degenerated. There is no point arguing with someone who is just going to insult and play games.
 
Meatballsub said:
What am I sourcing exactly? That I prefer peer reviewed journals to popular press?

Your source is a you tube video that is unsourced itself. I would like to see the peer review of this in a journal to see what other biologists have found from examining the remains.
Click to expand...

If you want peer reviews, there are many creationist who are biologist and scientist who have repeatedly debunked evolution. So what is your point?
Even evolution is peer reviewed to be false.
 
Meatballsub said:
Birds are still dinosaurs. Humans are still Hominids, who are still apes, who are sill mammals, who are still warm blooded, which are still chordates, which is still an animal, which is still a living organisms.

At this, point the conversation has now just degenerated. There is no point arguing with someone who is just going to insult and play games.
Click to expand...

Me playing games? You are not addressing the valid points I raised.

Your statement doesn't prove anything. Saying that apple is still a fruit doesn't make orange a vegetable.
 
felix said:
You speak a lot of garbage but no content.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, there is content that you simply ignore, for example, the discussion of chromosome differences.
I explained it well and explained even how RM dating is flaws on its assumption.
Click to expand...
Nope, you simply offered assertions absent any evidence at all. Where is your evidence for a 'radioisotope-light' pre-flood geology, for example? Where is your explanation for the absence of short-lived radioisotopes in current geology?
However, you never took a single pain in even addressing a single bit of it. Your response was "garbled 'explanation'". let me know how it is garbled 'explanation' and let me also know what you understand as RM dating.
Click to expand...
RM dating is a methodology of dating material based on sound principles of physics regarding the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes. There are some 40 different such methodologies. Which would you lie to discuss? Carbon-14? Potassium-Argon? Any other?
Also, there is not a single glacier layer taken for half a kilometre and nor any varves exists for miles.
Click to expand...
Who said they did? 800,000 annual ice layers have been measured from the Antarctic icecap. Varve sequences in the Green River trmation measure millions of seasonal events.
I repeatedly addressed that they RM date the first and then count years but you repeatedly say I never addresses it.
Click to expand...
You have asserted this, but not shown it. RM dating is usually used now as a cross-check for other dating methodologies, it is not used to predetermine what dates those methodologies will return.
If you think you know any dating method that does not use RM dating, please let me know and how dates are arrived (every step of it).
Click to expand...
So you object to cross-checking data and verifying it by independent methodologies? Varve sequencing is determined by physically r mechanically counting cored sequences of seasonally-recurring deposits. What further detail donyouvrequire?
 
felix said:
Nope. E-coli is still E-coli.
Click to expand...
Different populations of which show different evolutionary developments despite deriving from the same ancestor population and being raised in identical habitats. Also, as pointed out before, bacteria reproduce asexually, not sexually, a fundamental difference when considering the impact of genetic drift, mutation and sexual recombination. You seem resistant to the information, but as it undermines your argument I can well understand why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top