Originally posted by G G:
RAMSAADE WROTE:
"Sorry to burst your bubble but science relies on objective and verifiable facts not on cartoons and drawings. The fossil record is REAL and deadly for Creationism."
I guess you just didn't read my post well. What "objective and verifiable facts" have you got on the skin colour of dinosaurs? Or the shape of the iris? That's what I meant.
Oh and by the way, about cartoons and drawings: I applaud evolutionary theorists for their excellent and groundbreaking scientific visualization abilities, as they managed to sketch a whole pre-human and his family (complete with skin and hair - in colour) from 2 teeth. Which then unfortunately had to belong to a stopid pig. This wasn't of course forgery, this was a serious misunderstanding (I'm seriously not being sarcastic). If the teeth had been human, it would have made all the difference.
"Creationists are fond of employing red herrings and straw man arguments. I guess when you can't handle the evidence and powerful arguments for Evolution you try your luck at anything."
I know, the evidence is just
overwhelming
.
Wait, what evidence? (Btw I really don't like being called a creationist)
"For the same reason Theists fabricate bogus evidences for their believes."
I agree, evoscientists are as reliable as the writers of the Bible. Are they related?? That's the new hot question, my friend!
"Again, why would I? You know I reject the whole notion of prophet-hood. Mohammed was just 7th century arab leader albeit extraordinary one. His conduct can only be judged by the moral standards of his time not ours. Since I'm not a person calling for people to emulate Mohammed in the 21st century, I don't need to find faults with his actions and believes; it's actually you who has to defend him. "
Fair enough.
"Muslims of his time were busy dealing in slavery, specially black Negros like yourself. "
Muslims can't be slaves, soz bruv.
"Since that is NOT what Evolution theory postulates, let me know when you're interested in discussing the facts"
I think I already asked you; please explain/clarify to me what evolutionary theory is. See, I even asked you nicely
"I'm not gonna respond to this but let it hang there. It will come in handy later in showing us GG's entire understanding of genetics and mutations is cartoon-ish as it is gleaned from cartoons."
Thanks! I agree with you, that
is
pretty cartoonish! Thank you for agreeing with me. Unfortunately that was actually what De Vries suggested in early 20th century.
And he was the developer of mutation theory of evolution. :'( That's why my knowledge of genetics is so cartoonish and naive. I blame him, it was the swieetie man. Fooking Dutch and his prawnmen!
Nonsense. Whales have vestigial hind limbs that are leftovers from when they walked on land.
That's what evolutionists think. I just read today in the Guardian that T-rex has a tiny older brother, and it has just been found:
"The discovery overturns scientists' thinking about how Tyrannosaurus rex evolved. Many of the most striking features of the beast, such as its puny forearms, were thought to be a trade-off during the evolution of its enormous size, but Raptorex shows these features had already evolved more than 60m years earlier."
Scientists sure seem to think a lot.
"Here is non-exclusive list: Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis (my favorite), Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba."
You know what, I actually googled that list in that exact order and guess what came up? A thread called "Finally, tangible PROOF of MACRO-EVOLUTION". Let me guess your search words: "TANGIBLE PROOF OF MACRO-EVOLUTION, HELP!"
Now what did you say about copy&paste, you old hypocrite? Shame on you. I doubted you knew anything, because even in spite of your eloquent use of fancy words, you dangerously confuse things and are not even familiar with the basics.
"There were different kind of species of Australopithecus, which one are you referring. Lets take, for arguments sake, Australopithecus Afarensis. This species was clearly an intermediate between apes and humans. For instance, its brain was about the size of chimpanzee but it was bipedal and had anatomical features resembling more closely humans as opposed to apes. Furthermore, its teeth looked more human than apes."
This is exactly what I mean with "confusing things". Australopithecus (both aferensis and africanus) is (supposedly) the forefather of modern chimpanzees. The fact that you say they resemble more humans than apes just sealed it for me.
"And the date of the fossils predate fossils for modern humans"
And this is your explanation? Because they came earlier, they must be their ancestors?
Let me ask you something in that case: who came first the floresiensis or the neanderthal? And now: which resembles more the modern human?
And by the way, how does one get the date of fossils?
Yes, they did not have bones since most animals are insects. This is why most fossils consist of hard stuff like bones, teeth, claws. We rarely find skin or tissue. The species that leave best and most fossils are those that: lived for long time, had hard body parts, were numerous and lived over large geographical area. Plant fossils are discovered, far less than animals, precisely because they're more ubiquitous and live in many different ecosystems
Please read what you wrote. "They didn't have bones since most animals were insects"? That is utter nonesense. The reason fossils are discovered rarely is because their remains decompose. It has nothing to do "bodies made of hard stuff" but everything to do with the body being covered with sediment in order to preserve.
"This is what I meant when earlier I said GG's conception of Genetics and mutations is cartoon-ish."
Yay! I know, right?!
"Mutations are merely mistakes from copying the genetic material during cell division (reproductive cells). These mutations add to the genetic diversity by adding new mutations on top of inherited mutations."
Dear God. Delete this post before you start regretting it. It's really embarrassing.
You haven't got the faintest of idea of what you're talking about. it's not even funny. We don't all carry mutant genes, if we did we'd be facking retards. (No offense to those who have inherited diseases)
"Perhaps GG should stop watching X-Men and start reading High School biology textbook. "
Perhaps you should cut the pseudo-intellectual crap, and have a look at that biology book. Mutations add to the genetic diversity... on top of inherited mutations... Lol.
"Second, Archeopteryx were their own species (as are all species) but they had features that were not completely dinosaur or completely bird, hence their status as intermediate species."
So a group of guys had a look at this bird that looked funny, and in their all-powerful wisdom, they declared it an intermediate? Yeah, sure, sounds good by me.
"They're not? Please, enlighten us. For example, tell us where we look for those mutations?"
Why genetic make up and mutation are not the same thing:
Mutations are changes in the DNA sequence of a cell's genome and are caused by radiation, viruses, transposons and mutagenic chemicals, as well as errors that occur during meiosis or DNA replication.
Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have evolved mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.
This is from Wikipedia. You could have just typed 'mutation' and saved me the trouble and yourself the embarrassment.
You're clueless, aren't you"
I am.
"There are still single celled organisms."
And where did they come from? Or have they always been, and we've solved the mystery of life, and these single celled organisms are the origin of all life, our forefathers?
"Yes, like in the X-Men cartoons. "
Totally. I like the films better though.
"Because omniscient, omnipotent creator knows the outcome before the test on earth. Before God creates you, He already knows your destiny otherwise he's not omniscient. He chose, out of His free will, to create you knowing ahead of time where you will end up."
Of course He does. It's no secret, you know?
"Thus, the test on earth is meaningless and free will is an illusion."
Life on Earth (material pursuits etc) is meaningless and ultimately an illusion. The test however is real. The realness of free will can be seen in our discussion: you don't believe in God, I do. Because God has created you so that you will never be able to predict tomorrow; knowing your future is impossible for you. Therefore free will is real for you and not for Him. Just like this world is the reality for you and not for Him.
A comprehensive rebuttle tinged with humour and sarcasm
