Flat Earth Society

---

...if you only worked half as hard at actually trying to answer the question as you did trying to skirt it.

Originally Posted By: thorWell..since you're out of this thread I guess there's no sense in discussing particulars. HAHAHAHAAHAHA!!! You little chicken! She may be out of here but I'm waiting to read your response. Remember me? I'm that guy who you keep ignoring because you can't come up with a logical argument. Originally Posted By: thorBut I would strongly suggest you do some of your own research into how the conclusions you mention above came to be made. After just scanning them, I see several that have been made on poor, faulty and/or unproven methods of deduction. Carbon dating, we're discovering, is way off what we thought it was...and can be affected by many things that we have no way of knowing if they ocurred in the time-span in question or not. In short, we aren't nearly as smart as we make ourselves out to be. Yes Carbon dating does not always work perfectly, which is why it is almost always done in combination with some other form of radiometric dating system, such as Uranium-lead dating, Samarium-neodymium dating, Potassium-argon dating, Rubidium-strontium dating, Uranium-thorium dating, Fission track dating, Chlorine-36 dating or Optically stimulated luminescence dating. The results are then cross-referenced and a more precise and reliable date is discovered.We are a lot smarter than you seem to think. Have you any clue how complicated the internet is? A 100% human constructed invention.And speaking of research, I have of yet failed to see any of your own research put on the table. So put up or shut up.

Originally Posted By: thor

...if you only worked half as hard at actually trying to answer the question as you did trying to skirt it.

This is quite rich coming from the guy who STILL continues to ignore my question!

What would you expect an animal in the process of evolution to look like?

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousAnd speaking of research, I have of yet failed to see any of your own research put on the table. So put up or shut up. Since you've done all this internet research, you should have no problem answering my question then...right?BTW, you must have skipped (or chose to ignore) information on the affects upon all types of radioactive dating that cataclysmic events have on them...in other words, all radioactive dating is highly questionable. And the further back in time one goes, the more questionable the accuracy is. We're not talking percentages...we're talking orders of magnitude in error. This has only recently been discovered. Add to that that any type of radioactive dating requires that particular isotope be present in the item being dated...which is not always the case. The whole dating scheme that scientists have relied upon as being correct becomes more and more questionable as time goes by, and we learn even more that we don't know concerning what we thought we did know.Imagine a world where all we think we know is based on what we can find on the internet. Control what is on the internet, and you can control what people think they know. Interesting concept, isn't it?

Do you really not understand, thor? You asked two questions: one in the form "Why (statement)?", and the other in the form "How come (statement)?". I argued that both statements were false. That is not skirting the questions, it is demolishing them. If the statement is false, the question is a nonentity. (Consider the answer to the questions "Why does the sun rise in the evening? How come it sets in the morning?".) Do you really not understand this?

(A further thought comes to mind that perhaps you do not understand that "speciation" means the process of evolving into new species - that is, evolution in practice - and that therefore observations of speciation are the observations of evolution that you don't think exist. But if you had had the courtesy to read the link you would have known this.)

Speciation does not describe, in any stretch of the human imagination, evolutionary means. You either don't understand what you're talking about, or are merely making a weak attempt to avoid a question you don't want to have to publically answer.

As for the "missing link", please tell me what you know about Lucy, and why scientists were so excited (initially) about her discovery? (Bonus points if you can tell me how they got the name "Lucy" :wink: )

Go and read the link I gave you.

I did. There's nothing other than circumstantial speculation mentioned. No scientific DNA tests mentioned...only an observed different behavior which CAN be the process of natural selection. The only genetic point mentioned is genetic drift...which occurs with many species, not just this one. But this does not create a new species. You're reaching. Why?Now go read my post.

Sigh Very sad.

Evolution Observed Within a Human's LifetimeI think the article speaks for itself.

Originally Posted By: CiderEvolution Observed Within a Human's LifetimeI think the article speaks for itself. Yes...after the fact. It's been observed before, and I'm sure will again many times. But...nothing has been observed in the process, as I originally stated. Nothing. Period. One day it's not there...the next it is. New insect species are turning up all the time...no new news there.As far as natural selection goes, it has never...I repeat...never introducted new genes into the gene pool. As a result, it's impossible for natural selection to be the method that has populated the earth with a plethora of new species. This concept is so simple it's inconceivable that folks can't understand it...until one can realize and acknowledge the power of brainwashing things into folks as if they're a proven facts, when no such things have ever occurred. Never. Not even once.

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Originally Posted By: CiderYou don't know what you're talking about, do you? That is exactly what somebody who's been brainwashed would say. Life on this planet started with less complex creatures and advanced to more complex ones. Without a method of explaining how more complex genes were introduced (which natural selection does NOT explain), you have no logical explanation for the occurance of evolution...at all. Period. You and the others just don't get it.And...you can talk all day long about moths, beatles, insects and such...you still haven't found anything in the process of evolving. You haven't found a fish beginning to grow legs. Only a fish with legs. You haven't found a bird beginning to grow wings...only a bird with wings. You haven't found a whole extrememly long list of things which, if evolution took place the way the athiests state it did, should be there. Including the missing link which would (in some scientists views) explain how we got here. You can't find them...scientists can't find them (and they've been looking a loooong time)...Darwin couldn't find them, and you won't either. Because THEY DON'T EXIST! NEVER HAVE!!! Species appear on this earth with the changes made...they don't gradually happen ACCORDING TO THE EVIDENCE GATHERED. And athiest/scientists/whoever have absolutely no explanation for any of it. However, they will avoid this subject like the plague whenever confronted by somebody who questions their unproven theories. They will attempt ridicule as a last resort...but will never be able to answer the question: "How did it happen!???"

Ah, thor, how comfortable it must be to have a brain so impervious. The rest of us can only wonder how a brain can actually get like that, and shudder.

Do you have an intelligent comment to make concerning my post, or are you just here for the slander?

I and others have already given intelligent comments, but you don't understand them, or even try to understand them.

I understand them and intelligently reject them as irrelevant to the issue at hand. You want to talk about mosquitos in subways, but that does not come anywhere close to explaining evolution as it occurred over the past several thousand years. It doesn't even explain how the mosquito got here to begin with. I'd settle for that, believe it or not. But if you could explain that, I'm sure you already would have.

You said "How come no animal or other form of life has been discovered while in the process of evolving?". I gave you two counter-examples disproving the assertion within your question, including one carried out under observation in the laboratory, and pointed you to some others. Cider gave you another. Then after all that, you say "you still haven't found anything in the process of evolving". You either don't understand anything, or you simply pretend to yourself that anything that challenges any of your ideas doesn't exist. I suspect the latter, but it's not a pretty sight.

Niether you, nor anybody, has shown an example of, per my example, a fish growing legs. No fossils have ever been found of any in-between stages for any creature. Everything was always fully functional! One day there were no legs...the next day they were there and working. No in-between steps where new genetic material was introduced...now half-grown legs, for example. You come up with an example or two concerning natural selection, where we have a little genetic drifting and no new genes being introduced, and you call it evolution. Genetic drifting will never account for a new species requiring new genetic information. It's like throwing a rock into the water on the beach and expecting the resultant ripples to drown the city of Tokyo on the other side of the world. It's rediculous. And to see for yourself how rediculous, start delving into exactly what must happen for genetic drifting to account for the creation of new species on the scale of, say, a bird becoming a duck (or the other way around). Go ahead. Try it. You will begin to see that it is not something that could possibly happen overnight. There would be in-between stages where the evolution was not complete, if things are as you say they are. But no evidence of any such thing is ever found. EVER!!! In addition to that, how would this extremely complex drifting propagate itself? It would have to simultaneously happen in both male and female of the species in order to propagate itself. Figure the odds of that happening...you'd more likely turn over a rock and find that a wrist-watch had assembled itself due to random events. Preposterous. Now factor into those odds the necessity of this happening for every single species ever discovered. Ludicrous. Open up your eyes and mind, for they are both closed.

You asked for examples of the process of evolution. You got them. Now you say the process of evolution means a fish growing legs overnight. It doesn't. (Though if you catch some tadpoles and keep them and feed them, you will be able to observe yourself a fishy creature with gills growing legs over quite a short space of time.)I've already explained that substantial evolution generally takes place in small populations or sub-populations (normally under stressed conditions). Since most bodies don't fossilise, the chances of seeing this in the fossil record are miniscule. But the formation of new genes is quite easily seen - for example in the development of antibiotic resistance. Until penicillin was discovered half a century ago, bacteria had no use for β-lactamases - now genes producing them are ubiquitous. Genes for resistance to many other antibiotics have arisen even more quickly.