Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2014 Goal: $450.00 - To Date: $450.00 (100.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers

LOL

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-11-2014, 12:47 PM   #21
Vis
Banned
Supporter
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 8,259
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 834
Thanked 5,968 Times in 2,867 Posts
My Mood: Tired
Default Re: Cool Science Stuff



Vis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vis For This Useful Post:
harrison'samonster (03-11-2014), SteelersCanada (03-11-2014)
Old 03-11-2014, 03:00 PM   #22
CanSteel7
Bench Warmer
 

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Binbrook, ON Canada
Posts: 287
Gender: Male
Member Number: 25607
Thanks: 38
Thanked 303 Times in 161 Posts
Default Re: Cool Science Stuff

One day we will look back at all this and see that evolution was the BIGGEST lie ever thrust upon people because of one man's erroneous hypothesis about the origins of life!
CanSteel7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 03:54 PM   #23
Vis
Banned
Supporter
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 8,259
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 834
Thanked 5,968 Times in 2,867 Posts
My Mood: Tired
Default Re: Cool Science Stuff

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSteel7 View Post
One day we will look back at all this and see that evolution was the BIGGEST lie ever thrust upon people because of one man's erroneous hypothesis about the origins of life!
Do you think Darwin is faking DNA sequencing results from the grave or did you make a sarcastic joke at creationists' expense?
Vis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vis For This Useful Post:
Buddha Bus (03-12-2014), harrison'samonster (03-11-2014)
Old 03-11-2014, 04:00 PM   #24
vasteeler
Team President
 
vasteeler's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: richmond va
Posts: 2,420
Gender: Male
Member Number: 3341
Thanks: 896
Thanked 1,173 Times in 463 Posts
My Mood: Yeehaw
Default Re: Cool Science Stuff

Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSteel7 View Post
One day we will look back at all this and see that evolution was the BIGGEST lie ever thrust upon people because of one man's erroneous hypothesis about the origins of life!
vasteeler is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to vasteeler For This Useful Post:
Buddha Bus (03-12-2014)
Old 03-11-2014, 10:35 PM   #25
CanSteel7
Bench Warmer
 

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Binbrook, ON Canada
Posts: 287
Gender: Male
Member Number: 25607
Thanks: 38
Thanked 303 Times in 161 Posts
Default Re: Cool Science Stuff

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vis View Post
Do you think Darwin is faking DNA sequencing results from the grave or did you make a sarcastic joke at creationists' expense?
The question that I have, that no evolutionist seems to be able to answer is how do you explain the origin or complexity of information. A fertilized human egg is about the size of a pin head. It contains information equivalent to about SIX BILLION chemical letters of DNA. Where did this information come from? Evolutionists have no answer or explanation. In fact, there is enough information in the genes from just one man and woman that they could have more children than atoms in the entire universe without getting two that looked alike. How do you explain the high degree of order and specificity and how it could arise by random process?

Of course evolutionist will say it arose by chance millions and millions of years ago. BUT if you go to a computer science department and ask them where information comes from, they will tell you that information is created from removing chance. Information is the opposite of chance. Werner Giff, information scientist, stated that there is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. So again, where did the information come from? The fact that there appears to be design, means that there is a designer. Scientist who are willing to look at the evidence in an unbiased manner state "the answer should be obvious - an intelligent Creator is unmistakably required".

Not only is the origin of information a problem, but evolutionists cannot explain how life became more complex. Evolution is supposed to explain how life progressed from simple life forms to more complex ones. However, the amount of information in a single cell, a protozoa, is far less than the amount of information in a person. According to Don Batten, for a typical bacterium to be transformed into a human over some billions of years, one has to add the information for an additional 100,000 genes. An impossible task for mutations to achieve.

Natural selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes. It cannot produce new information. This is consistent with the Bible's account of origins. GOD created distinct kinds of plants animals, each reproduce after its own kind. You can observe great variation in a KIND, and see the results of natural selection, BUT, they are still part of the same KIND, no new information being produced. One kind has never been observed to change into a totally different kind with new information that previously did not exist. For example, amoeba DNA has no information for making hooves, hair, tails, and eyes but horse DMA does. An alligator DNA has no genetic information for producing feathers, hollow bones, and one-way lung systems, but birds do.

The fossil record also disproves evolution because there are no known samples showing real evidence of transitions from one species to another. So what happens? Punctuated Equilibrium! I guess the fact that there is no evidence to support slow transitions, is the evidence that supports PE?!

Animals and human beings reproduce after their own kind, just like GOD and the Bible states, that is a fact! The problem is, people don't want to admit that there is a GOD because at that point, they are accountable! People do not want to be accountable, it's that simple. They want to be able to do anything they want at any time. I think Aldous Huxley said it best. "I had a motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."

Then there is Thomas Nagel "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world".
CanSteel7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2014, 10:45 PM   #26
Vis
Banned
Supporter
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 8,259
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 834
Thanked 5,968 Times in 2,867 Posts
My Mood: Tired
Default Re: Cool Science Stuff

You have used every debunked argument of Ken Ham. Way to go. In fact you borrowed the whole post.

So let me pick one to start and you can read and follow links and maybe even learn, if you can add new information and evolve.

Claim CB102:

Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
Source:

AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp
Response:

It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).
Links:

Max, Edward E., 1999. The evolution of improved fitness by random mutation plus selection. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness

Musgrave, Ian, 2001. The Period gene of Drosophila. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr01.html
References:

Adami et al., 2000. (see below)
Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.
Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf
Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799.
Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.
Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.
Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.
Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.
Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799. http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/
Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments. http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Relea.../r022802b.html
Further Reading:

Adami, C., C. Ofria and T. C. Collier, 2000. Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4463-4468. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463 (technical)

Hillis, D. M., J. J. Bull, M. E. White, M. R. Badgett, and I. J. Molineux. 1992. Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny. Science 255: 589-92. (technical)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Vis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vis For This Useful Post:
harrison'samonster (03-11-2014), JonM229 (03-12-2014)
Old 03-11-2014, 10:50 PM   #27
Vis
Banned
Supporter
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 8,259
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 834
Thanked 5,968 Times in 2,867 Posts
My Mood: Tired
Default Re: Cool Science Stuff

And another:

Claim CC200:

There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.
Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.
Response:

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

Dinosaur-bird transitions.

Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).

A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).

Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).
Links:

Hunt, Kathleen. 1994-1997. Transitional vertebrate fossils FAQ. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Miller, Keith B. n.d. Taxonomy, transitional forms, and the fossil record. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

Patterson, Bob. 2002. Transitional fossil species and modes of speciation. http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm

Thompson, Tim. 1999. On creation science and transitional fossils. http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html
References:

Caldwell, M. W. and M. S. Y. Lee, 1997. A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386: 705-709.
Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford University Press.
Cronin, T. M., 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: climatic modulation of evolution. Science 227: 60-63.
Domning, Daryl P., 2001a. The earliest known fully quadupedal sirenian. Nature 413: 625-627.
Domning, Daryl P., 2001b. New "intermediate form" ties seacows firmly to land. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(5-6): 38-42.
Eldredge, Niles, 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147(2): 45-114.
Eldredge, Niles, 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548.
Gerrienne, P. et al. 2004. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian seed plant precursor. Science 306: 856-858.
Gingerich, P. D., 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science 276(1): 1-28.
Gingerich, P. D., 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 8: 407-424.
Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education 31: 140-144.
Hallam, A., 1968. Morphology, palaeoecology and evolution of the genus Gryphaea in the British Lias. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 254: 91-128.
Lee, Michael S. Y., Gorden L. Bell Jr. and Michael W. Caldwell, 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400: 655-659.
Lewin, R., 1981. No gap here in the fossil record. Science 214: 645-646.
Lindsay, Don, 1997. A smooth fossil transition: Orbulina, a foram. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/c.../orbulina.html
Malmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319.
Miller, Kenneth R., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins.
Pearson, P. N., N. J. Shackleton and M. A. Hall. 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 295-302.
Poinar, G. O. Jr. and B. N. Danforth. 2006. A fossil bee from Early Cretaceous Burmese amber. Science 314: 614.
Richmond B. G. and D. S. Strait, 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404: 382-385. See also Collard, M. and L. C. Aiello, 2000. From forelimbs to two legs. Nature 404: 339-340.
Shu, D.-G. et al., 2004. Ancestral echinoderms from the Chengjiang deposits of China. Nature 430: 422-428.
Stanley, Steven M., 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn: A new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28: 447-457.
Strapple, R. R., 1978. Tracing three trilobites. Earth Science 31(4): 149-152.
Tchernov, E. et al., 2000. A fossil snake with limbs. Science 287: 2010-2012. See also Greene, H. W. and D. Cundall, 2000. Limbless tetrapods and snakes with legs. Science 287: 1939-1941.
Ward, L. W. and B. W. Blackwelder, 1975. Chesapecten, A new genus of Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Miocene and Pliocene of eastern North America. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 861.
Further Reading:

Cohn, Martin J. and Cheryll Tickle. 1999. Developmental basis of limblessness and axial patterning in snakes. Nature 399: 474-479. (technical)

Cuffey, Clifford A. 2001. The fossil record: Evolution or "scientific creation". http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm or http://www.nogs.org/cuffeyart.html

Elsberry, Wesley R. 1995. Transitional fossil challenge. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberr.../tranform.html

Godfrey, L. R. 1983. Creationism and gaps in the fossil record. In: Godfrey, L. R. (ed.), Scientists Confront Creationism, New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 193-218.

Morton, Glenn R. 2000. Phylum level evolution. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm

Pojeta, John Jr. and Dale A. Springer. 2001. Evolution and the Fossil Record, Alexandria, VA: American Geological Institute, http://www.agiweb.org/news/spot_06apr01_evolutionbk.htm , http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution.pdf , pg. 2.

Strahler, Arthur N. 1987. Science and Earth History, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, pp. 398-400.

Zimmer, Carl. 2000. In search of vertebrate origins: Beyond brain and bone. Science 287: 1576-1579.



Please note that my borrowed information contains references. Please provide the same in your next attempt.
Vis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vis For This Useful Post:
harrison'samonster (03-11-2014), JonM229 (03-12-2014)
Old 03-11-2014, 10:58 PM   #28
Vis
Banned
Supporter
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 8,259
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 834
Thanked 5,968 Times in 2,867 Posts
My Mood: Tired
Default Re: Cool Science Stuff

Here's the whole debate

Vis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Vis For This Useful Post:
harrison'samonster (03-11-2014), JonM229 (03-12-2014), SteelerEmpire (06-03-2014)
Old 03-11-2014, 11:07 PM   #29
Vis
Banned
Supporter
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 8,259
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 834
Thanked 5,968 Times in 2,867 Posts
My Mood: Tired
Default Re: Cool Science Stuff

My favorite slam on young earthers comes from a surprising source:

Vis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vis For This Useful Post:
harrison'samonster (03-11-2014), JonM229 (03-12-2014)
Old 03-11-2014, 11:37 PM   #30
CanSteel7
Bench Warmer
 

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Binbrook, ON Canada
Posts: 287
Gender: Male
Member Number: 25607
Thanks: 38
Thanked 303 Times in 161 Posts
Default Re: Cool Science Stuff

Dude, again, you show me a theory or hypothesis of what scientists say "which this is likely the origin of some proteins" and pass it off as a fact that has been proven, when in fact it hasn't been. When it can be and has been proven as fact, like what you are trying to pass off here and is not, then use that. You accuse me of using material from Ken Ham but you are using material as evidence of transitions that evolutionist scientist who are already bias toward the evolutionist theory report. You're doing the same thing! There are other credible scientist who will look at the same evidence and state otherwise. These references that I've used are not from Ken Ham but other people. Yes, I did borrow them from the internet. This is not an official document and didn't think I needed to put the references. If it makes you feel better, next time I will.

Look, what it boils down to is this. This is a battle of world views. Mine differs from yours just as much as one scientist's from another. It is simply, which world view you personally want to believe in and supports your belief. The sources you are quoting as well, don't want to accept any other evidence but that of what appears to validate their thoughts or beliefs. Again, there are credible scientists that are just as accomplished as your evolutionary friends are that look at the evidence and say, yes, there is such fine tuned design in creation, that proves mathematically evolution as, what you used, a debunked theory. Finely tuned intelligent design means that there is a designer. Unfortunately, evolutionists and atheists do not want to accept their conclusions of what they see. Why? Because if they do, then there are consequences. At that point, they are accountable for their actions, etc... People do not want to be accountable, it's as simple as that! There is plenty of extra biblical evidence, both historically and from archeology to support the authenticity of the Bible, the persons and events in them. The only thing is, atheists and evolutionists do not want to look at that because of the implications. Richards Dawkins is a prime example of that. When he is asked to review the evidence that proves the authenticity of the Bible, he will not. Again, this is a battle of world views, no more no less. Are you willing to look at and consider the evidence that other credible scientists hold the opposite view and show that the biblical account of creation is correct? If not, then you've answered my question.
CanSteel7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts