Someone gave me a pamphlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-04-2013, 07:23 PM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
Pamphlet makes false assertions, lies and is misleading on any numbers of points.

Ignore it, use to light a bonfire or shred it for confetti. It contains nothing of value.
Give the pamphlet back to whoever gave it to you and say "If you believe lying is immoral or a sin, stop handing out these pamphlets."
"You are allowed to have your own opinion, but don't make the ignorant assumption that your opinion can be substituted for facts"

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
11-04-2013, 08:17 AM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
Quote:Which confirms theory, because the universe is not, in fact, spinning. Spinning galaxies and such are the result of slight differences in density as matter collapses.
How do you know it's not spinning, please? And tell us about your galaxy-sized collapse examples that are not conjectural? What with their taking 100,000 years to occur. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 08:25 AM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
Quote:Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over generations. If you move a continental plate an inch a year, you can create the Himalayas over millions of years. Organs don't appear suddenly, but over many generations, perhaps starting out as a random mutation and eventually coming to play a significant role in the animal's existence.
No, it isn't. For a land species to move to water or vice versa we need many things far more complex than the rock structures of mountain ranges:

*Load bearing limbs (water is 40% more buoyant)
*Temperature regulation - oceans don't change 40 degrees in one day like land-based climates
*Sexual reproductive processes
*Adaptation to predators
*Food and digestive changes
*Ammonia production and waste regulation/urination which is vastly different in the oceans
*Etc.

The ONLY argument I've seen on this forum (perhaps there are better off this forum in some book you'd recommend?) is the "save your pennies and I'll you'll have enough to buy a TV someday" baloney.

I believe, as does every Christian friend I have, in adaptation, speciation and micro-evolution. But reptiles/birds/land/water, etc. macro-Evolution, which is neither proved by empty shells of similar-in-appearance, fully formed fossilized beings, nor is seen anywhere in the world today, sounds more like witch doctor magic than science. Sorry.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-04-2013, 09:36 AM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
(11-04-2013 08:25 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  No, it isn't. For a land species to move to water or vice versa we need many things far more complex than the rock structures of mountain ranges:

*Load bearing limbs (water is 40% more buoyant)
*Temperature regulation - oceans don't change 40 degrees in one day like land-based climates
*Sexual reproductive processes
*Adaptation to predators
*Food and digestive changes
*Ammonia production and waste regulation/urination which is vastly different in the oceans
*Etc.

The ONLY argument I've seen on this forum (perhaps there are better off this forum in some book you'd recommend?) is the "save your pennies and I'll you'll have enough to buy a TV someday" baloney.

I believe, as does every Christian friend I have, in adaptation, speciation and micro-evolution. But reptiles/birds/land/water, etc. macro-Evolution, which is neither proved by empty shells of similar-in-appearance, fully formed fossilized beings, nor is seen anywhere in the world today, sounds more like witch doctor magic than science. Sorry.

So you ignored the content of the post. Thanks.

1. As I said, organs (or legs) don't appear suddenly. You don't go from a fish to a lizard in one generation.
2. It didn't go from fish to reptiles in one generation. I already mentioned fish to "walking" fish to amphibians to terrestrial amphibians to reptiles. Each step only requires the ability to deal with slightly different temperatures and conditions than the one before it.
3. There are already lots of articles to read on the evolution of sexual reproduction, such as the possible development of the sexes by cells able to exchange dna to complete hermaphrodites to offspring that have one feature dominant to independent sexes.
4. Adaptation to predators just means the white moths on a tree get eaten and the brown ones don't.
5. There are existing specimens that exhibit the different stages of digestive system development we would expect to see. From a ball with a pit to a tube with a straight tract to something more complex like a worm...
6. wat

That is exactly shifting inches to create a mountain. Every step is insignificant, but the result is very visible. Going from fish to lizard seems absurd, but when you see the hundreds of stages between them, and the slight changes in organs and limbs, it makes a lot of sense.

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Elesjei's post
11-04-2013, 05:59 PM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
(11-04-2013 08:25 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over generations. If you move a continental plate an inch a year, you can create the Himalayas over millions of years. Organs don't appear suddenly, but over many generations, perhaps starting out as a random mutation and eventually coming to play a significant role in the animal's existence.
No, it isn't. For a land species to move to water or vice versa we need many things far more complex than the rock structures of mountain ranges:

*Load bearing limbs (water is 40% more buoyant)
*Temperature regulation - oceans don't change 40 degrees in one day like land-based climates
*Sexual reproductive processes
*Adaptation to predators
*Food and digestive changes
*Ammonia production and waste regulation/urination which is vastly different in the oceans
*Etc.

The ONLY argument I've seen on this forum (perhaps there are better off this forum in some book you'd recommend?) is the "save your pennies and I'll you'll have enough to buy a TV someday" baloney.

I believe, as does every Christian friend I have, in adaptation, speciation and micro-evolution. But reptiles/birds/land/water, etc. macro-Evolution, which is neither proved by empty shells of similar-in-appearance, fully formed fossilized beings, nor is seen anywhere in the world today, sounds more like witch doctor magic than science. Sorry.

Sorry, but Elsjei is totally correct.

Go back in time 375,000,000 - 400,000,000 years and you will find animals similar to today's lungfish (6 surviving species). They lived in the shallows and used their lobe-fins to push along the bottom. These fins were strong enough to mostly support their weight, thus allowing brief excursions onto land. The "lungs" were used to aid in buoyancy, and eventually they adapted their gills to be able to breath oxygen from the air. (Another fine example of evolution's greatest trick of simply repurposing existing traits.)

The temperature would not be an issue. Firstly, temperatures near water tend to vary less than areas away from water. Secondly, you're ignoring the time factor. Initially, the animals briefly step onto land, root around for minute or so, then slide back into the water. Do this once a day, adding a few seconds each time, and eventually you have a land-dweller who was never shocked by a radical change.

Sexual reproduction occurred aquatically before any land animals emerged. It tended to be a more efficient delivery system than a semen cloud floating in the female's vicinity.

Since the only animals on land at the time were insects, predation wasn't much of an issue, at least not until those bad assed dragonflies showed up during the carboniferous period. Regardless, there were far more predators in the water than on land. Besides, anywhere on Earth, at anytime, for any species, predators have, and will continue to be, an issue for survival.

The bryophytes (mosses, liverworts, and hornworts) on land weren't much different than what they were already eating in the water. Food/dietary adaptation tends to be relatively fast and easily achieved. Modern rats have adapted to be able to eat most anything humans discard. A few decades ago there was a species of insectivorous lizard transplanted onto an island. This lizard is now herbivorous, and has developed stomach valves to make this possible.

To me, it looks like the walking catfish and mudskipper are doing today what tiktaalik and panderichthys did back then. Will the catfish become a land-dweller? Will it remain in the water? Check back in a million years or so and find out.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeffasaurus's post
12-04-2013, 07:32 AM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
Quote:As I said, organs (or legs) don't appear suddenly. You don't go from a fish to a lizard in one generation.
Rather, you are ignoring the content of my posts. There are no fossils anywhere with any "intermediary" limbs. Short limbs, of course. Arguments about "vestigial" limbs, of course.

Your entire argument is based on "there are many small changes over time that add up" when NONE of those changes are visible now (see "wait a million years" in the post above) and there are no, no, no, ZERO intermediate limbs of any kind for any fossil despite now having billions of fossils in museums, yes, billions.

A human liver has over 500 functions we know of, the kidneys, a number of functions, with cell spaces two cells thick cleansing body fluids. The lungs have over 30 distinct levels of brachia--these transitions we're talking about are immensely complex and on the genetic level also.

Do you all have ANY macroevolution arguments that aren't "we can't see it now, have never seen it in fossils, so it must have been countless numbers of small changes over long periods of time"? I'm tired of asking and feel like giving up on trying to understand whether you are claiming science... or faith in magical happenings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2013, 07:42 AM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
(12-04-2013 07:32 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:As I said, organs (or legs) don't appear suddenly. You don't go from a fish to a lizard in one generation.
Rather, you are ignoring the content of my posts. There are no fossils anywhere with any "intermediary" limbs. Short limbs, of course. Arguments about "vestigial" limbs, of course.

Your entire argument is based on "there are many small changes over time that add up" when NONE of those changes are visible now (see "wait a million years" in the post above) and there are no, no, no, ZERO intermediate limbs of any kind for any fossil despite now having billions of fossils in museums, yes, billions.

A human liver has over 500 functions we know of, the kidneys, a number of functions, with cell spaces two cells thick cleansing body fluids. The lungs have over 30 distinct levels of brachia--these transitions we're talking about are immensely complex and on the genetic level also.

Do you all have ANY macroevolution arguments that aren't "we can't see it now, have never seen it in fossils, so it must have been countless numbers of small changes over long periods of time"? I'm tired of asking and feel like giving up on trying to understand whether you are claiming science... or faith in magical happenings.


Please do some reading.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2013, 07:59 AM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
I would like to point out one very simple but often overlooked argument that nips all this in the bud without much effort.

So what if and I do mean if evolution was false. That doesn't automatically make whatever answer you wish to insert in it's place true. Why go through all this effort to combat what you merely call a theory if you don't have some other agenda.

Thanks I'll hedge my bet on those without agendas. Smile

It poisons the well a bit I will grant but it certainly avoids a drawn out and pointless conversation with these idiots.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 11:45 AM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
(12-04-2013 07:59 AM)Godless Wrote:  I would like to point out one very simple but often overlooked argument that nips all this in the bud without much effort.

So what if and I do mean if evolution was false. That doesn't automatically make whatever answer you wish to insert in it's place true. Why go through all this effort to combat what you merely call a theory if you don't have some other agenda.

Thanks I'll hedge my bet on those without agendas. Smile

It poisons the well a bit I will grant but it certainly avoids a drawn out and pointless conversation with these idiots.

I feel the same way regarding freethinkers. But surely there is an agenda that becomes so uncomfortable for you that you fight so hard for Evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2013, 12:13 PM
RE: Someone gave me a pamphlet
Let me guess, PJ, that you haven't looked into the link that Chas provided or looked at this book?

Link: http://www.addall.com/New/compare.cgi?di...=&state=KS

By the nature of your posts it is quite apparent that you have not. While most of the people you converse with on this website have read your source/inspiration cover to cover, you have not read the evidence on the other side. If you had, you wouldn't be trotting out the false claim of a lack of transitional forms. IT'S.SIMPLY.NOT.TRUE.

At times I even wonder if you've really read the bible in all its "glory" yourself or whether you rely on spoon fed messaging at your local indoctrination center.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like devilsadvoc8's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: