{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/19/2015 12:48:00 AM
9
I have a little side-note to make with the basis that there is "mountains of evidence of macroevolution"
Think of every cell as a CD, it contains massive amounts of information. Now we need to give it a consciousness, "The knowledge of good and evil" if that makes sense. Once that is done it must start re-writing itself. Every bit of information on the CD needs to be rewritten. Even with all this info, life must start [b]THINKING[/b]. Here is an experiment you can try.
Place a CD with a song burned on it inside of a bucket filled with water. Now, be patient and wait. PM me when the words to that song have changed.
The Cambrian Explosion/Radiation, 542-490 ma BC. 542 ma years ago is when humans start to find mass amounts of life in the Sea. Trilobites, Burgessia, Vrokodia are a few out of 120 species found in this time. And you're telling me this just came out of nowhere? Evolutionists say that the reasoning for this is that Soft-Bodied organisms dominated the Sea before they evolved. However...these "Scientists" provide [b]NO EVIDENCE[/b] of Evolution before 542 ma, BC.
Thankyou, for giving me something to write about..
English
-
What part of the fossil record don't you get?
-
[quote]What part of the fossil record don't you get?[/quote] I like how you can't come up with a logical response that can prove YOUR point. You should rather say [i]I don't get the fossil record[/i] The missing links that evolution is based on are not there. They however do have a smaller scale of these links. Take for example, the Balusaurus. This whale has an extra joint that shouldn't be there. But next in this "Evolutionary Timescale" We don't have a whale with legs. Funny. The best that scientists could find is an ancient crocodilian beast. We can't just look at bones and just know what the organism is, or where it belongs to. Take for example the scandle with Mr. Chun in Ukraine. He found 'Ancient human bones' but when he showed it to his homecountry China, they provided that these were actually fossilized APE. To evolve one must first gain new instincts. A whale must tell himself to eat meat before he becomes a crocodilian. The same goes for monkeys. Sea-stars must change nature to eat other fish,and larger plants (not phytoplankton). This change would require a change in everything, their teeth, digestive system, and their circulatory system. Again, thankyou for letting me show you up!
-
Edited by Britton: 6/19/2015 1:22:53 PM[quote][quote]What part of the fossil record don't you get?[/quote] I like how you can't come up with a logical response that can prove YOUR point. You should rather say [i]I don't get the fossil record[/i] The missing links that evolution is based on are not there. They however do have a smaller scale of these links. Take for example, the Balusaurus. This whale has an extra joint that shouldn't be there. But next in this "Evolutionary Timescale" We don't have a whale with legs. Funny. The best that scientists could find is an ancient crocodilian beast.[/quote] Firstly, you just made it abundantly clear you indeed do not understand the fossil record. If your defense is " the fossil record has gaps" then 1) you don't grasp that fossilization doesn't occur for every animal when it dies. 2) some animals simply don't fossilize well 3) we've only searched a [b]tiny fraction[/b] of earth for said fossils. Thanks amount of archaeological sites in the world won't even add up to 1% of earths surface. That being said, its literally impossible to achieve a perfect fossil record. Secondly, you you're terribly misrepresenting the evolution of whales. The fossil record shows a very gradual skeletal change from a land based mammal, to semi aquatic ones, till finally we have the cetaceans we have today. It's not surprising you have to rely on a poor understanding to make your point seem valid, because a poor understanding is the only way someone can take your position in the first place. [quote]We can't just look at bones and just know what the organism is, or where it belongs to. Take for example the scandle with Mr. Chun in Ukraine. He found 'Ancient human bones' but when he showed it to his homecountry China, they provided that these were actually fossilized APE.[/quote] 1)humans are apes 2)the classification of bone fragments are indeed heavily discussed and must be very carefully analyzed. Mistakes do happen, that's the margin of human error. However to think that we can't make extremely educated guesses or that sometimes it isn't obvious is false. [quote]To evolve one must first gain new instincts. A whale must tell himself to eat meat before he becomes a crocodilian. The same goes for monkeys. Sea-stars must change nature to eat other fish,and larger plants (not phytoplankton). This change would require a change in everything, their teeth, digestive system, and their circulatory system.[/quote] Citation needed Once again, your lack of understanding is ever so evident. Almost literally every animal feeds on more than one type of organism. It doesnt require new instincts, it just requires natural selection. If chimpanzee population A is eating primarily nuts and berries because they are much more available than any other food source, we will eventually see changes that are evident of its more unique diet. [quote]Again, thankyou for letting me show you up![/quote] It's really quite simple, and just because you don't understand fossilization or evolution doesn't mean they have any less credit. You showed up yourself, and you did it incredibly easy.
-
Edited by FFLk: 6/19/2015 5:03:20 PMOkay, I took Biology in College, and something we learned was that the fossil record is incomplete. Tell me professors are wrong, and that's also your loss. We learned that even with 8000+ fossil entries to the Cambrian Period of time, we still haven't found any Pre-Cambrian fossils. You can argue all you want that we have only scratched te surface, which I agree with. BUT we have found ape fossils dating back millions of years ago, and only ONE piece of substantial evidence connecting them to humans. Wouldn't you think that we would have hundreds of these links already found? Take a look at the novel Darwin's Doubt, the book covers the stremgths and weaknesses of Creationism, and the same of Singularity and Evolution. I respect your opinions, I just ask that you would treat them as theories, and not fact. :-)
-
Awesome, you don't even understand what a theory is.
-
Dude, I'm not in the mood to argue, I have things to do. Can't just spend hours doing this :-) Just read the book and all my examples make sense.
-
Also, you're arguing evolution is a conscious act, which is absurd.
-
Edited by Britton: 6/19/2015 7:05:23 PMI have no interest in reading religious propaganda and pseudoscience.
-
[quote][quote]What part of the fossil record don't you get?[/quote] I like how you can't come up with a logical response that can prove YOUR point. You should rather say [i]I don't get the fossil record[/i] The missing links that evolution is based on are not there. They however do have a smaller scale of these links. Take for example, the Balusaurus. This whale has an extra joint that shouldn't be there. But next in this "Evolutionary Timescale" We don't have a whale with legs. Funny. The best that scientists could find is an ancient crocodilian beast.[/quote] Firstly, you just made it abundantly clear you indeed do not understand the fossil record. If your defense is " the fossil record has gaps" then 1) you don't grasp that fossilization doesn't occur for every animal when it dies. 2) some animals simply don't fossilize well 3) we've only searched a [b]tiny fraction[/b] of earth for said fossils. Thanks amount of archaeological sites in the world won't even add up to 1% of earths surface. That being said, its literally impossible to achieve a perfect fossil record. Secondly, you you're terribly misrepresenting the evolution of whales. The fossil record shows a very gradual skeletal change from a land based mammal, to semi aquatic ones, till finally we have the cetaceans we have today. It's not surprising you have to rely on a poor understanding to make your point seem valid, because a poor understanding is the only way someone can take your position in the first place. [quote]We can't just look at bones and just know what the organism is, or where it belongs to. Take for example the scandle with Mr. Chun in Ukraine. He found 'Ancient human bones' but when he showed it to his homecountry China, they provided that these were actually fossilized APE.[/quote] 1)humans are apes 2)the classification of bone fragments are indeed heavily discussed and must be very carefully analyzed. Mistakes do happen, that's the margin of human error. However to think that we can't make extremely educated guesses or that sometimes it isn't obvious is false. [quote]To evolve one must first gain new instincts. A whale must tell himself to eat meat before he becomes a crocodilian. The same goes for monkeys. Sea-stars must change nature to eat other fish,and larger plants (not phytoplankton). This change would require a change in everything, their teeth, digestive system, and their circulatory system.[/quote] Citation needed Once again, your lack of understanding is ever so evident. Let's look at the diets of two different animals. Almost literally every animal feeds on more than one type of organism. It doesnt require new instincts, it just requires natural selection. If chimpanzee population A is eating primarily nuts and berries because they are much more available than any other food source, we will eventually see changes that are evident of its more unique diet. [quote]Again, thankyou for letting me show you up![/quote] It's really quite simple, and just because you don't understand fossilization or evolution doesn't mean they have any less credit. You showed up yourself, and you did it incredibly easy.
