quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
VML, I'll admit I haven't looked at evolution in years. But, as I recall since nobody was there as evolution took place and they've not yet discovered a means to measure the effects of environmental changes that occurred eons ago, that "environmental changes" is a theory. Do you have a link to it actually being more than a theory? If you do not, respectfully, couldn't the mechanical process of predestination be as likely as the mechanical process of environmental change?

You're falling into the mistake of assuming that there hasn't been an environment change that qualifies as an evolutionary pressure in recent history. Google "New England Peppered Moths" for an example of natural selection being observed as it was taking place.

I'm not falling into anything while you are projecting once again. I stated I haven't looked at evolution in years and asked respectfully if VML had information more current than I.

I am aware, for instance, that when I hunt pheasants the birds I find usually don't fly and assume that is so because most of the pheasants shot and killed have the predisposition to elude hunters by flying and when they are shot they don't pass on their genetics. But, how is that sort of thing to be attributed to a mechanical process that is admittedly a theory...which is the substance, really, of my question to VLM. Your point doesn't address my query so much as try to make me sound like a dullard by not addressing my point. Which I find is your usual troll behavior.

I'm sorry you feel that a demonstration of the bolded sentence in your post being incorrect is being trolled, but I suppose I shouldn't expect any better from you.

Here whore, I've used Wikipedia to dumb this down a little for you.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

quote:

Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution has occurred in that modern organisms differ from past forms, and evolution is still occurring with discernible differences between organisms and their descendants. There is such strong quantitative support for the second that scientists regard common descent as being as factual as the understanding that in the Solar System the Earth orbits the Sun, although the examination of the fundamentals of these processes is still in progress. There are several theories about the mechanisms of evolution, and there are still active debates about specific mechanisms.[9]

Note the bold.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Predestination, it is interesting that "Evolution" is also strongly on the side of predestination, since the Universe is like a large set of set up dominoes and once started by the "Big Bang" there is nothing to stop or change what is happening until the dominoes stop falling. Evolution, our existence and any decisions we might make are all just part of the "natural" chain of events that started with the "Big Bang". Most "Evolutionists" don't seem to realize that predestination is a kind of side corollary to their “belief” in "Evolution".

An awesome demonstration of your ignorance of evolution. There are a great many alternatives and chance happenings during the evolution of life due to the unpredictability of environmental changes. Environmental changes are major players in the narrative of evolution. To link evolution to predestination is to suggest a mechanical certainty, which simply is not borne out by the fossil and genomic evidence. Your ignorance about evolution is appalling, Miles. I hope you will educate yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
VML, I'll admit I haven't looked at evolution in years. But, as I recall since nobody was there as evolution took place and they've not yet discovered a means to measure the effects of environmental changes that occurred eons ago, that "environmental changes" is a theory. Do you have a link to it actually being more than a theory? If you do not, respectfully, couldn't the mechanical process of predestination be as likely as the mechanical process of environmental change?

You're falling into the mistake of assuming that there hasn't been an environment change that qualifies as an evolutionary pressure in recent history. Google "New England Peppered Moths" for an example of natural selection being observed as it was taking place.

I'm not falling into anything while you are projecting once again. I stated I haven't looked at evolution in years and asked respectfully if VML had information more current than I.

I am aware, for instance, that when I hunt pheasants the birds I find usually don't fly and assume that is so because most of the pheasants shot and killed have the predisposition to elude hunters by flying and when they are shot they don't pass on their genetics. But, how is that sort of thing to be attributed to a mechanical process that is admittedly a theory...which is the substance, really, of my question to VLM. Your point doesn't address my query so much as try to make me sound like a dullard by not addressing my point. Which I find is your usual troll behavior.

I'm sorry you feel that a demonstration of the bolded sentence in your post being incorrect is being trolled, but I suppose I shouldn't expect any better from you.

Here whore, I've used Wikipedia to dumb this down a little for you.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

quote:

Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution has occurred in that modern organisms differ from past forms, and evolution is still occurring with discernible differences between organisms and their descendants. There is such strong quantitative support for the second that scientists regard common descent as being as factual as the understanding that in the Solar System the Earth orbits the Sun, although the examination of the fundamentals of these processes is still in progress. There are several theories about the mechanisms of evolution, and there are still active debates about specific mechanisms.[9]

Note the bold.

I'm not the one who needs stuff dumbing down if you think that debate about the workings of evolutionary mechanisms are the same thing as the process having occurred being called into doubt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
VML, I'll admit I haven't looked at evolution in years. But, as I recall since nobody was there as evolution took place and they've not yet discovered a means to measure the effects of environmental changes that occurred eons ago, that "environmental changes" is a theory. Do you have a link to it actually being more than a theory? If you do not, respectfully, couldn't the mechanical process of predestination be as likely as the mechanical process of environmental change?

You're falling into the mistake of assuming that there hasn't been an environment change that qualifies as an evolutionary pressure in recent history. Google "New England Peppered Moths" for an example of natural selection being observed as it was taking place.

I'm not falling into anything while you are projecting once again. I stated I haven't looked at evolution in years and asked respectfully if VML had information more current than I.

I am aware, for instance, that when I hunt pheasants the birds I find usually don't fly and assume that is so because most of the pheasants shot and killed have the predisposition to elude hunters by flying and when they are shot they don't pass on their genetics. But, how is that sort of thing to be attributed to a mechanical process that is admittedly a theory...which is the substance, really, of my question to VLM. Your point doesn't address my query so much as try to make me sound like a dullard by not addressing my point. Which I find is your usual troll behavior.

I'm sorry you feel that a demonstration of the bolded sentence in your post being incorrect is being trolled, but I suppose I shouldn't expect any better from you.

Here whore, I've used Wikipedia to dumb this down a little for you.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

quote:

Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution has occurred in that modern organisms differ from past forms, and evolution is still occurring with discernible differences between organisms and their descendants. There is such strong quantitative support for the second that scientists regard common descent as being as factual as the understanding that in the Solar System the Earth orbits the Sun, although the examination of the fundamentals of these processes is still in progress. There are several theories about the mechanisms of evolution, and there are still active debates about specific mechanisms.[9]

Note the bold.

I'm not the one who needs stuff dumbing down if you think that debate about the workings of evolutionary mechanisms are the same thing as the process having occurred being called into doubt.

Ya...ya...you got nothing. Okay, I'll ignore you here as well. Don't feed the troll.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
VML, I'll admit I haven't looked at evolution in years. But, as I recall since nobody was there as evolution took place and they've not yet discovered a means to measure the effects of environmental changes that occurred eons ago, that "environmental changes" is a theory. Do you have a link to it actually being more than a theory? If you do not, respectfully, couldn't the mechanical process of predestination be as likely as the mechanical process of environmental change?

You're falling into the mistake of assuming that there hasn't been an environment change that qualifies as an evolutionary pressure in recent history. Google "New England Peppered Moths" for an example of natural selection being observed as it was taking place.

I'm not falling into anything while you are projecting once again. I stated I haven't looked at evolution in years and asked respectfully if VML had information more current than I.

I am aware, for instance, that when I hunt pheasants the birds I find usually don't fly and assume that is so because most of the pheasants shot and killed have the predisposition to elude hunters by flying and when they are shot they don't pass on their genetics. But, how is that sort of thing to be attributed to a mechanical process that is admittedly a theory...which is the substance, really, of my question to VLM. Your point doesn't address my query so much as try to make me sound like a dullard by not addressing my point. Which I find is your usual troll behavior.

I'm sorry you feel that a demonstration of the bolded sentence in your post being incorrect is being trolled, but I suppose I shouldn't expect any better from you.

Here whore, I've used Wikipedia to dumb this down a little for you.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

quote:

Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution has occurred in that modern organisms differ from past forms, and evolution is still occurring with discernible differences between organisms and their descendants. There is such strong quantitative support for the second that scientists regard common descent as being as factual as the understanding that in the Solar System the Earth orbits the Sun, although the examination of the fundamentals of these processes is still in progress. There are several theories about the mechanisms of evolution, and there are still active debates about specific mechanisms.[9]

Note the bold.

I'm not the one who needs stuff dumbing down if you think that debate about the workings of evolutionary mechanisms are the same thing as the process having occurred being called into doubt.

Ya...ya...you got nothing. Okay, I'll ignore you here as well. Don't feed the troll.

If you're that desperate to avoid addressing the point that examples of natural selection through evolutionary pressure have been demonstrated to have taken place in recent history rather than "eons ago", I'm not surprised you have to fall back on a victim whining and accusations of trolling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
VML, I'll admit I haven't looked at evolution in years. But, as I recall since nobody was there as evolution took place and they've not yet discovered a means to measure the effects of environmental changes that occurred eons ago, that "environmental changes" is a theory. Do you have a link to it actually being more than a theory? If you do not, respectfully, couldn't the mechanical process of predestination be as likely as the mechanical process of environmental change?

You're falling into the mistake of assuming that there hasn't been an environment change that qualifies as an evolutionary pressure in recent history. Google "New England Peppered Moths" for an example of natural selection being observed as it was taking place.

I'm not falling into anything while you are projecting once again. I stated I haven't looked at evolution in years and asked respectfully if VML had information more current than I.

I am aware, for instance, that when I hunt pheasants the birds I find usually don't fly and assume that is so because most of the pheasants shot and killed have the predisposition to elude hunters by flying and when they are shot they don't pass on their genetics. But, how is that sort of thing to be attributed to a mechanical process that is admittedly a theory...which is the substance, really, of my question to VLM. Your point doesn't address my query so much as try to make me sound like a dullard by not addressing my point. Which I find is your usual troll behavior.

I'm sorry you feel that a demonstration of the bolded sentence in your post being incorrect is being trolled, but I suppose I shouldn't expect any better from you.

Here whore, I've used Wikipedia to dumb this down a little for you.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

quote:

Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution has occurred in that modern organisms differ from past forms, and evolution is still occurring with discernible differences between organisms and their descendants. There is such strong quantitative support for the second that scientists regard common descent as being as factual as the understanding that in the Solar System the Earth orbits the Sun, although the examination of the fundamentals of these processes is still in progress. There are several theories about the mechanisms of evolution, and there are still active debates about specific mechanisms.[9]

Note the bold.

I'm not the one who needs stuff dumbing down if you think that debate about the workings of evolutionary mechanisms are the same thing as the process having occurred being called into doubt.

Ya...ya...you got nothing. Okay, I'll ignore you here as well. Don't feed the troll.

If you're that desperate to avoid addressing the point that examples of natural selection through evolutionary pressure have been demonstrated to have taken place in recent history rather than "eons ago", I'm not surprised you have to fall back on a victim whining and accusations of trolling.

If you're that desperate to defect from and address the actual points being discuss rather than your projections I'm not surprised that you are falling back on being a troll by acting all superior rather than have a discussion and name calling.

Carry on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji
VML, I'll admit I haven't looked at evolution in years. But, as I recall since nobody was there as evolution took place and they've not yet discovered a means to measure the effects of environmental changes that occurred eons ago, that "environmental changes" is a theory. Do you have a link to it actually being more than a theory? If you do not, respectfully, couldn't the mechanical process of predestination be as likely as the mechanical process of environmental change?

You're falling into the mistake of assuming that there hasn't been an environment change that qualifies as an evolutionary pressure in recent history. Google "New England Peppered Moths" for an example of natural selection being observed as it was taking place.

I'm not falling into anything while you are projecting once again. I stated I haven't looked at evolution in years and asked respectfully if VML had information more current than I.

I am aware, for instance, that when I hunt pheasants the birds I find usually don't fly and assume that is so because most of the pheasants shot and killed have the predisposition to elude hunters by flying and when they are shot they don't pass on their genetics. But, how is that sort of thing to be attributed to a mechanical process that is admittedly a theory...which is the substance, really, of my question to VLM. Your point doesn't address my query so much as try to make me sound like a dullard by not addressing my point. Which I find is your usual troll behavior.

I'm sorry you feel that a demonstration of the bolded sentence in your post being incorrect is being trolled, but I suppose I shouldn't expect any better from you.

Here whore, I've used Wikipedia to dumb this down a little for you.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

quote:

Biologists consider it to be a scientific fact that evolution has occurred in that modern organisms differ from past forms, and evolution is still occurring with discernible differences between organisms and their descendants. There is such strong quantitative support for the second that scientists regard common descent as being as factual as the understanding that in the Solar System the Earth orbits the Sun, although the examination of the fundamentals of these processes is still in progress. There are several theories about the mechanisms of evolution, and there are still active debates about specific mechanisms.[9]

Note the bold.

I'm not the one who needs stuff dumbing down if you think that debate about the workings of evolutionary mechanisms are the same thing as the process having occurred being called into doubt.

Ya...ya...you got nothing. Okay, I'll ignore you here as well. Don't feed the troll.

If you're that desperate to avoid addressing the point that examples of natural selection through evolutionary pressure have been demonstrated to have taken place in recent history rather than "eons ago", I'm not surprised you have to fall back on a victim whining and accusations of trolling.

If you're that desperate to defect from and address the actual points being discuss rather than your projections I'm not surprised that you are falling back on being a troll by acting all superior rather than have a discussion and name calling.

Carry on.

And I'm the one whose projecting?
Cute!
But go on then, explain how your belief that nobody was there as evolution took place and that its connection with environmental changes thus cannot be proven is sustainable in the light of evidence that says otherwise.

quote:

Since you brought up the "awesome demonstration of my ignorance of evolution", perhaps I should point out your apparent ignorance of the laws the Universe works by. Once the "Big Bang" occurred, every bit of matter and energy would continue on the course set for them by that "Big Bang" according to the "Natural" laws of the Universe and there would be no "great many alternatives and chance happenings" and no "unpredictability of environmental changes" and there would be "mechanical certainty". The only way this would not be the case is if they were acted upon by an outside force and surely you're not admitting that there could be an "outside force" of some kind.

quote:

"according to the "Natural" laws of the Universe and there would be no "great many alternatives and chance happenings" and no "unpredictability of environmental changes" and there would be "mechanical certainty"

quote:

VML, I'll admit I haven't looked at evolution in years. But, as I recall since nobody was there as evolution took place and they've not yet discovered a means to measure the effects of environmental changes that occurred eons ago, that "environmental changes" is a theory. Do you have a link to it actually being more than a theory? If you do not, respectfully, couldn't the mechanical process of predestination be as likely as the mechanical process of environmental change? Of course, I realize that by asking the question there has to be an assumption of God in a predestination mechanical theory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

VML, I'll admit I haven't looked at evolution in years. But, as I recall since nobody was there as evolution took place and they've not yet discovered a means to measure the effects of environmental changes that occurred eons ago, that "environmental changes" is a theory. Do you have a link to it actually being more than a theory? If you do not, respectfully, couldn't the mechanical process of predestination be as likely as the mechanical process of environmental change? Of course, I realize that by asking the question there has to be an assumption of God in a predestination mechanical theory.

Nnanji, you seem to be asking for a dissertation on geology and paleontology, which is a pretty exhausting endevour. How about this, I will give you some of the information I have stored away in my hippocampus and we can build from there. This is going to be somewhat scattershot and disorganized but I will give it a go.

Probably most importantly is the use of natural radiation to determine the age of rocks and fossils. We have calculated the rate at which uranium crumbles and gives off slightly smaller particles. Uranium-92 decays to become Thorium-90 If we measure the amount of Uranium in a rock and compare it to the amount of Thorium we can apply our knowledge of the rate of decay and estimate how old the rock is. This is applicable for very old rocks and as I recall is the basis for estimating the age of the Earth.

The radioactive carbon isotope C-14 decays to become Nitrogen-14 with a half life of 5730 years. Half-life means that half the amount of carbon will have become nitrogen in 5730 years. Another half of C-14 will change in the next 5730 years, and so on. Always disappearing by half. This is very convenient because "organic" molecules (the basis of all living things) contain carbon isotopes. We can compare the quantity of C-14 to the quantity of N-14 in a fossil and derive its age. Uranium has a very, very long half life and is not suitable as a measurement for fossils and newer sedimentary rocks, such as make up the strata of the walls of the Grand Canyon. So, we can collect down the side wall of the Grand Canyon and calculate the age of the rocks by measuring the quantities of carbon and nitrogen isotopes in the fossils.

I hope that is helpful for a start.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Probably most importantly is the use of natural radiation to determine the age of rocks and fossils. We have calculated the rate at which uranium crumbles and gives off slightly smaller particles. Uranium-92 decays to become Thorium-90 If we measure the amount of Uranium in a rock and compare it to the amount of Thorium we can apply our knowledge of the rate of decay and estimate how old the rock is. This is applicable for very old rocks and as I recall is the basis for estimating the age of the Earth.

quote:

QUESTION: Catastrophism versus Uniformitarianism – Where does the evidence lead?

ANSWER:

Catastrophism versus uniformitarianism describes alternative process which could be primarily responsible for the formation the geological strata and embedded fossils. Catastrophism was accepted as the only possible explanation until the about the 18th century. Catastrophism taught that the geologic rock strata were primarily a result of catastrophes like the worldwide flood of Noah. At that time James Hutton and Sir Charles Lyell proposed an alternative explanation of uniformitarianism. The theory of uniformitarianism taught that the present was the key to the past and exactly the same slow process that we see today is the one responsible for the formation of all the geological rock strata.

Since deposition with the uniformitarianism theory was so slow, long eons of time were required. This meant that the current biblical beliefs at that time of a young earth, the recent history of life on earth and the worldwide flood of Noah were discredited. In addition, uniformitarianism laid the foundation for Darwin’s theory of evolution, which also needed an old earth to be credible.

So uniformitarianism dethroned catastrophism and evolution dethroned biblical creationism and both became the dominant theories in academia and science until the present time. Currently, academia and science are clinging to uniformitarianism and biological macroevolution with all the strength they can muster. However, large splits have been seen in the ranks. During the last 50 years an enormous amount of information has been collected that supports catastrophism and intelligent design.

The Mount St. Helens eruption and subsequent erosion has taught us that rapid deposition and rapid canyon erosion is a fact. It doesn’t take years to form. It doesn’t take rocket science to know that life forms cannot be fossilized unless buried rapidly.

Regarding biological macroevolution:
• No transitional fossils have been found; museums should be full of them.
• Hoaxes, forgeries, and misrepresentations have been rampant.
• Evolutionists can’t explain the origin of life.
• Evolutionists can’t explain complexity or irreducible complexity.
• Evolutionists can’t explain consciousness.

Many in science and academia have a deeply held religious belief in uniformitarianism and evolution in spite of all the evidence pointing in the opposite direction. This is understandable from several standpoints:
• Not wanting to be accountable to a God, they would have to accept if they would let the scientific data form their scientific beliefs.
• Their conflict of interest is revealed by their complete refusal to consider special creation as a possible alternative explanation, especially when the fossil evidence stares them in the face.
• The fact that their original theories were based upon religious political motivations. Dr. Henry Morris claimed that this was true for Sir Charles Lyell. Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Huxley “Darwin’s bulldog,” first director of UNESCO and prominent evolutionist was asked on a public radio station an interesting question. He was asked why evolution was accepted so rapidly. He didn’t say anything relating to scientific evidence. He said the reason it became so popular was because it didn’t interfere with our sexual mores.

Consequently, the evidence definitely leads to the fact that the new paradigm shift from a solid belief in the Bible, the biblical flood and a young earth to skepticism in the Bible, rejection of the biblical flood of Noah and an old earth occurred as a result of using the banner of science to promote a religious belief rather than being based upon scientific evidence. Uniformitarianism and evolution theories were tools to accomplish this.