A creationist named Cyma

[InnerBrat]

First of all, lets clear something up. Apes are not monkeys. Chimps are apes. Humans are apes. This is basic taxonomy, and was recognised by Linneaus.
(Oh, and I'm not trying to steal your argument, Wong, I'm just adding a biologist's perpsective. Tell me to bugger off if you want)

that is why I do not believe in evolution Mr. Wong. So if you change a monkeys chemistry…then how will its DNA make a human? It can’t

Neotony - it simply involves the retardation of the physical development process so that a reproductive adult looks like a child - the foramen magnum remains beneath the cranium (allowing bipedalism) and the briancase remains large and rounded.

well then how did a monkey go “poof” and now it’s a human?

Neotony.
Or, more simply, it didn't. It required 2 million years of evolution from the MRCA with Chimps for H. sapiens to emerge. On the way, Australopithecus spp, H. habilis, H. ergaster and H. Heidelbergensis were progressively more and more "human"

Darwin studied Coral…just because one day he saw finches, doesn’t mean what he said is right either. How do you know Evolution is true? Because you watch character traits within creatures and assume they evolved? I can watch birds fly by migrating any day…but how does that show me evolution?

This paragraph makes no sense at all. As Mike said , biogeography really needs evolution as an explanation.
As you don't know anything about Darwin, let's assume you know more about his co-author's work. How, apart from evolution, can you explain Wallace's Line?

no its not, its assumptions. You find a skull…you measure it, you find all of its dimensions, you find out where the muscles plugged into it at, you find out how it walked, you conclude it looks like an ape, yet it is also similar to a human skull in dimensions…there for you assume it’s a missing link, and don’t say that is not what they do because I took biology in college, I worked in a lab, I learned evolution and I measured skulls, and I compared it to other skulls…and that is exactly what we did, may have been 5 years ago but I still remember it….so just because they look similar, then they must be ancestors?

...you'll have to forgive me if I take your claims of expertise with a grain of salt, given your inability to distinguish between evidence and theories, ignorance of basic logic, grotesque misrepresentations of evolution theory as "poof" from monkey to man, etc

I can only add to that by highlighting your apparent complete lack of knowledge about both Biology and the History of Biology.

And don’t tell me that is not what you guys do…look at Lucy, you found a monkey which did not look like any known species of monkeys that existed, so right there those evolutionist thought hmmm we found our new missing link, so they did all of these measurements and now it’s a missing link?

An ape that walked on two legs, like only one species of ape alive today, and had precision-engineered hands that were far more suitable for tool use and an arboreal lifetsyle, also like only one species of ape alive today.
Even if you don't believe in evolution, if you follow the creationist Great Chain of Being idea, then Australopithecus afarensis (represented, BTW by more then one specimen) fits in between Pan trogoldoytes and Homo sapiens (notwithstanding all the other hominid species).

Just because you find fossils does not mean anything. Look at Dinosaur fossils, they are still debating on dinosaurs eating patterns, whether they were cold or warm blooded, and how fast they moved…you cannot tell anything from fossils except for the proof that such a creature existed once, and how they moved about.

And what they ate, and their skeletal morhpology, and in some cases their physiology, and whether or not they had feathers, and the size of their family groups, and their nesting behaviour, and all this from fossils 100 to 65 million years old. We can tell much more from hominid fossils less than 2my old, as well as the added benfits givien by the archaeological record.

[The Yosemite Bear]

You know I generally try to stay out of this sort of arguement, but for those "Young Earth" types, I just want to know, one thing. Since the Chinese, and Incan Callanders go back 20,000 years (Meaning they had math and were counting the years some 14,000 years LONGER then your counterparts say there was an earth, what does that say, about the basis of your arguement)

Also it's kinda silly to take something that's written in ALLEGORY at face value.

[Colonel Olrik]

Just a quick nitpick, as it seems our creationist friend does not begin to understand the physics behind carbon dating. Someone might as well explain it to him.

Carbon 14 (C14) is a radioactive isotope of carbon. It is produced in the upper atmosphere by radiation from the sun (Specifically, neutrons hit nitrogen-14 atoms and transmute them to carbon).

A creature dies, and the body is preserved. The C14 will undergo radioactive decay, and after 5730 years, half of it will be gone. Eventually, all of it will be gone. So, if we find such a body, the amount of C14 in it will tell us how long ago it was alive. Right?

After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all.

When talking about fossils, we're talking about beings who existed millions of years ago

THEREFORE, carbon dating is not used to validy the found fossils

Carbon dating has absolutely no relevance when Evolution is concerned.

The fossils are classified by its characteristics and the environment where they are found.
DNA has no connection whatsoever with fossils
And we still have all the living animals which were used to form the theory in the first place.

[Darth Servo]

Any bets on how long it will be before Cyma gets the 'FM' title?

[Peregrin Toker]

Just a question, Cyma -

If you're neither creationist nor evolutionist - what are you then??
Raëlian??

[Cyma]

Yes, it does. To change the age of the universe by more than an order of magnitude would require an incredibly drastic change.

change the age of the universe? Where are you going?

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit. We have been viewing the universe for thousands of years, hence ancient star-charts. And by viewing distant stars, we can actually look back through time for billions of years. The speed of light has not changed over the last 500 years; you are confusing increasingly accurate measurements with actual changes in the value which is being measured. And the behaviour of electromagnetism has not changed since it was first theorized.

I am not talking about the Greeks who believed there was a ring of fire around the earth and stars were holes in the ring. And yes the Speed of light has changed, not “””drastically””” but it has. We used modern measurements and found that the speed of light was decreasing, we thought this was an error in modern equipment so we used the same design that was used in ancient technology, the same technology that was used to first measure light and the same conclusion was reached, it is decreasing somewhat and it is probably a natural process.

The laws of chemistry don't change, but the chemical makeup of a DNA strand can and does change. That is why each child is not genetically identical to its parents. I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to declare that constant laws of chemistry must mean constant DNA.

I am talking about taking a piece of Human DNA and replacing it with a tree. Or like watching Monkey DNA somehow transform into a Human being, oh so million years ago. Not passing on DNA to your offspring. SO how can a monkey change into a human? Because its gradual?

The point which you're ignoring? The point about radioactive decay being a function of the nuclear binding force and the strength of electromagnetic repulsion, neither of which could change without massively changing the laws of physics and destroying all life? That point? Sorry, but you're ignoring and evading it at every turn.

?

I know how evolution works, but the only explanation you offer is “its gradual” , so how does a monkey change into a human? Or ape or lemur or whatever else you guys think we once were

I'm a person who can read, unlike you. Your use of the Golden Mean fallacy and your refusal to bother looking it up is more proof of your irrational argument's failure.

well I looked it up and if the website was wrong then don’t take it out on me, I am no philosopher, al I took was logical Philosophy and ancient philosophy, and the logical philosophy was not in depth. Ad that was 6 years ago, so no, I do not remember ay of it.

Lucy is a primitive monkey-like primate that walks upright. Since we don't see any of those walking around today, what do you think it was?

I think she was a monkey, not my grandma

PS. What would you accept as evidence of evolution?

well first of all, not looking at Bones or fossils for the reason that anybody can measure a fossil and decide it resembles an ape or human skull which doesn’t prove anything but the fact that it looks like an ape or a human skull. Secondly, what evidence?

[Drewcifer]

After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all.

When talking about fossils, we're talking about beings who existed millions of years ago

THEREFORE, carbon dating is not used to validy the found fossils

Carbon dating has absolutely no relevance when Evolution is concerned.

Good post!

I wanted to add that there are other forms of radiometric dating that are applicable to dating fossils, albeit indirectly.

When igneous rocks crystallize, the newly formed minerals contain various amounts of chemical elements, some of which have radioactive isotopes. These isotopes decay within the rocks according to their half-life rates, and by selecting the appropriate minerals (those that contain potassium, for instance) and measuring the relative amounts of parent and daughter isotopes in them, the date at which the rock crystallized can be determined. Most of the large igneous rock masses of the world have been dated in this manner.

Most sedimentary rocks such as sandstone, limestone, and shale are related to the radiometric time scale by bracketing them within time zones that are determined by dating appropriately selected igneous rocks...

source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html

In other words, a fossilliferous layer of sedimentary rock that is sandwiched between two layers of volcanic ash can be dated by inference.

And BTW, when radiometric dating methods are applied to meteorites, the samples are consistently found to be 4.6 billion years old

[Vympel]

I am talking about taking a piece of Human DNA and replacing it with a tree. Or like watching Monkey DNA somehow transform into a Human being, oh so million years ago. Not passing on DNA to your offspring. SO how can a monkey change into a human? Because its gradual?

You're a fucking idiot. Why don't you actually learn what evolution IS and IS NOT before you come here and spout inane creationist strawmen.

I know how evolution works, but the only explanation you offer is “its gradual” , so how does a monkey change into a human? Or ape or lemur or whatever else you guys think we once were

You sure as fuck DON'T know how it works. Monkeys do not change into humans. Retard.

I think she was a monkey, not my grandma

Dumbfuck ....

In regards to apes and humans, evolution posits that apes and humans evolved from a COMMON ANCESTOR. Modern apes do not become humans.

The most basic information on what evolution says and more importantly in regards to ridiculous creationist strawmen what it does NOT say, can be found freely on the internet. Get off your lazy ass and learn some basic shit, for fucks sake. I hate science and am awful at it and even I know WTF evolution says.

well first of all, not looking at Bones or fossils for the reason that anybody can measure a fossil and decide it resembles an ape or human skull which doesn’t prove anything but the fact that it looks like an ape or a human skull. Secondly, what evidence?

You really are an incredibly huge moron. Right now, as I type, I am killing germs smarter than you. Tell me, why doesn't the resemblance prove anything?

[RedWizard]

And yes the Speed of light has changed, not “””drastically””” but it has. We used modern measurements and found that the speed of light was decreasing, we thought this was an error in modern equipment so we used the same design that was used in ancient technology, the same technology that was used to first measure light and the same conclusion was reached, it is decreasing somewhat and it is probably a natural process.

Bullshit. What's your source?

BTW, your ass is not an acceptable source.

[Sea Skimmer]

Wow, this is like watching a high school student argue science with a professional engineer.








Oh wait, that is what's happening. Silly me.

Mabey its some form of monkey that hasn't yet exploded into a human.

[Vympel]

Ah yes I remember the day when I was swinging through the trees, then POOF I was a human ... ah those were the days I tell ya.

[Warspite]

[quote="Cyma"]
I am not talking about the Greeks who believed there was a ring of fire around the earth and stars were holes in the ring. And yes the Speed of light has changed, not “””drastically””” but it has. We used modern measurements and found that the speed of light was decreasing, we thought this was an error in modern equipment so we used the same design that was used in ancient technology, the same technology that was used to first measure light and the same conclusion was reached, it is decreasing somewhat and it is probably a natural process.[quote]

Could you please provide evidence for this? Sites? Quotes? What are you talking about? It has been shown that the speed of light is constant. Period. Throughout history that value has changed because of our increase in measuring accuracy and techniques, but it hasdn't changed it's basic physical property, that being constant.

*Sigh*

OK, history of speed of light measurement:

- Romer, 1676: variation of observed period of 2 Jupiter satellites, due to Earth translation, 226870 km/s

- Bradley, 1727: variation in the direction of light coming from prependicular stars to Earth's orbit, due to it's speed, 299649 km/s

- Fizeau, 1849: time taken by light to travel between Montmartre and SUresnes (aprox. 9km), 312146 km/s

- Fizeau, Foucault, Cornu, 1875: deviation caused in a beam o flight, afetr two sucessive reflections, separated by a given optical course, in a mirror rotating at high speed, 299918 km/s

- Michelson, 1926: more refined experiment of the rotating mirror, 299796 +- 4km/s

- Anderson, 1941: refined experiment of the Fizeau experiment (with electro-optic control), 299776 +- 6 km/s

Now, if your talking about this, you're a silly ass, because you don't understand a shit of physics, otherwise, you're even more idiot. Unless... You're not talking about the Hubble Constant, are you?

[Darth Servo]

Yes, it does. To change the age of the universe by more than an order of magnitude would require an incredibly drastic change.

change the age of the universe? Where are you going?

For the universe to appear to be several billions if its only a few thousand as stated in the Bible, the laws of physics must have chanced drastically during those 6000 years. Changed enough for said changes to still be significant within the last few centuries.

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit. We have been viewing the universe for thousands of years, hence ancient star-charts. And by viewing distant stars, we can actually look back through time for billions of years. The speed of light has not changed over the last 500 years; you are confusing increasingly accurate measurements with actual changes in the value which is being measured. And the behaviour of electromagnetism has not changed since it was first theorized.

I am not talking about the Greeks who believed there was a ring of fire around the earth and stars were holes in the ring. And yes the Speed of light has changed, not “””drastically””” but it has. We used modern measurements and found that the speed of light was decreasing, we thought this was an error in modern equipment so we used the same design that was used in ancient technology, the same technology that was used to first measure light and the same conclusion was reached, it is decreasing somewhat and it is probably a natural process.

You describe a study but give no numbers, no references, nothing at all but your assurances that it must be true because you said so. You actually expect people to take your word on faith? Why do I get the feeling your "source" is your preacher's sermon a few weeks ago? And who said anything about ancient Greeks?

The laws of chemistry don't change, but the chemical makeup of a DNA strand can and does change. That is why each child is not genetically identical to its parents. I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to declare that constant laws of chemistry must mean constant DNA.

I am talking about taking a piece of Human DNA and replacing it with a tree. Or like watching Monkey DNA somehow transform into a Human being, oh so million years ago. Not passing on DNA to your offspring. SO how can a monkey change into a human? Because its gradual?

Exactly, its gradual. A chimp did NOT go into labor one day and pop out a modern human.
Here's how it works. You have one species of animals living in two different environments. The different environments favor different traits thus causing the two populations to become more and more distinctive. New mutations create more variations in the different populations and the same mutations do not occur in the two different populations. Eventually the two populations become so different that a mating between a male from one and a female from the other can no longer produce fertile offspring between them. What is so difficult to understand about this?
The problem is you have this religious indoctrination that tells you that different species are completely separated by some invisible barrier and there can be zero commonalities between them. Scientific observation has proven this assumption to be totally false.
People have put genes from one species into another. Insulin to treat diabetics is produced by taking the human insulin gene and puting it into E. coli bacteria which then mass produce the protein.

The point which you're ignoring? The point about radioactive decay being a function of the nuclear binding force and the strength of electromagnetic repulsion, neither of which could change without massively changing the laws of physics and destroying all life? That point? Sorry, but you're ignoring and evading it at every turn.

?
I know how evolution works, but the only explanation you offer is “its gradual” , so how does a monkey change into a human? Or ape or lemur or whatever else you guys think we once were

No, you don't know how it works. You are completely convinced that its false without even studying it. You clearly have the completely false notion that one animal turns into another within its life span. Offspring are slightly different than parents. Over several generations, this leads to large scale changes in the species. You could easily get correct information from any biology text book. Go educate yourself you twit, and no, listening to church sermons and reading the Bible don't count.

I'm a person who can read, unlike you. Your use of the Golden Mean fallacy and your refusal to bother looking it up is more proof of your irrational argument's failure.

well I looked it up and if the website was wrong then don’t take it out on me, I am no philosopher, al I took was logical Philosophy and ancient philosophy, and the logical philosophy was not in depth. Ad that was 6 years ago, so no, I do not remember ay of it.

Ah, that explains much of your twisted way of thinking. You think along the smae lines as ancient philosophy (which relied on such silly notions as "so and so authority figure said so, therefore it must be true). We're not talking about the various schools of thought. We're talking about BASIC principles of logic; what constitutes a logical argument and what doesn't.

Lucy is a primitive monkey-like primate that walks upright. Since we don't see any of those walking around today, what do you think it was?

I think she was a monkey, not my grandma

You think monkeys walk upright? ROTFLMAO. Someone sterilize this idiot before it has any more offspring.

PS. What would you accept as evidence of evolution?

well first of all, not looking at Bones or fossils for the reason that anybody can measure a fossil and decide it resembles an ape or human skull which doesn’t prove anything but the fact that it looks like an ape or a human skull. Secondly, what evidence?

Huh? If the skull has some features common to apes and some features common to humans how do you explain that. Oh thats right, if it isn't exactly identical to a modern day human then you insist that it must have absolutely no relationship with us at all. Please justify this extremely stupid false dilema fallacy.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

change the age of the universe? Where are you going?

Change the age of the universe as in "lower it's theorized age from several billion to a few thousand".

I am not talking about the Greeks who believed there was a ring of fire around the earth and stars were holes in the ring. And yes the Speed of light has changed, not “””drastically””” but it has. We used modern measurements and found that the speed of light was decreasing, we thought this was an error in modern equipment so we used the same design that was used in ancient technology, the same technology that was used to first measure light and the same conclusion was reached, it is decreasing somewhat and it is probably a natural process.

As Warshpite proved, the speed of light measurements were not constant, and probably due to faulty equipment.

I am talking about taking a piece of Human DNA and replacing it with a tree. Or like watching Monkey DNA somehow transform into a Human being, oh so million years ago. Not passing on DNA to your offspring. SO how can a monkey change into a human? Because its gradual?

When will you learn that evolution is a gradual process? If necessary, an animal will adapt over time, with things slowly changing. Also, modern apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor, for the umpteenth time.

I know how evolution works, but the only explanation you offer is “its gradual” , so how does a monkey change into a human? Or ape or lemur or whatever else you guys think we once were

Perhaps if you look it up, you'll understand it.

I think she was a monkey, not my grandma

Lucy was a missing link between primitive apes and humans, one of the missing links Creationists keep demanding to be found.[/quote]