Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

And I from RIT.

My point is that these shows on the history channel are there for ratings. They don't give one shit about truth, or real research, study or science. The truth takes a back seat to ratings every time.

There may be some nut out there proposing such nonsense. But it's a position held by virtually 0% of serious scientist and yet these shows put them on even footing with theories held by the top minds in the country. If you watch them for anything more than entertainment you are making a mistake.

Of course that television station wants ratings but do you think these men and women would risk their reputations they built over many years for ratings ?

Anyone who would stand by that hypothesis has no reputation to worry about. They are most likely already labeled a crackpot. But it does depend somewhat on the phrasing, and this is critical.

If a scientist were to say, "It is possible, extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible, that life as we know it started by little green men showing up and spreading seeds all over the planet." And a producer took that statement and did an entire 'documentary' on that statement, the scientist can't really be blamed.

The producer of the show is taking what is seen by everyone of any value as a fringe possibility and putting it out there as if it were a mainstream idea.

This is what these shows do for ratings. The more fringe, the more crazy, the more spectacular the notion, the more they love it. The more play it receives. So people are left with a skewed notion of what is likely.

You can say that for many theories that exist today. Sometimes they are scientists that appear on the history channel supporting these theories. You don't watch the history channel I see.

 

[Underhill]

Of course that television station wants ratings but do you think these men and women would risk their reputations they built over many years for ratings ?

Anyone who would stand by that hypothesis has no reputation to worry about. They are most likely already labeled a crackpot. But it does depend somewhat on the phrasing, and this is critical.

If a scientist were to say, "It is possible, extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible, that life as we know it started by little green men showing up and spreading seeds all over the planet." And a producer took that statement and did an entire 'documentary' on that statement, the scientist can't really be blamed.

The producer of the show is taking what is seen by everyone of any value as a fringe possibility and putting it out there as if it were a mainstream idea.

This is what these shows do for ratings. The more fringe, the more crazy, the more spectacular the notion, the more they love it. The more play it receives. So people are left with a skewed notion of what is likely.

You can say that for many theories that exist today. Sometimes they are scientists that appear on the history channel supporting these theories. You don't watch the history channel I see.

No doubt there are hundreds of thousands of scientist in the world. So I have no problem believing they can find nuts to be on these shows as "experts".

And I do watch some history channel. But it is for entertainment purposes only. I find American Pickers interesting and funny. Staged as hell, but entertaining.

 

[daws101]

The fossil record is a reason not to trust the theory of evolution. Living fossils refute the idea of gradualism. That is why punctuated Equilibrium became a theory. I like how they try to explain away the non-evidence for gradualism.

another creationist piece of bullshit propaganda!

Living fossil

Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
Part of the series on
Evolution

Icon evolution.svg
People
Charles Darwin
Gregor Mendel
Alfred Russel Wallace
Richard Dawkins
Jerry Coyne

Science
Chimpanzee
Endurance running hypothesis
Stephen Jay Gould
Xenicibis

Pseudoscience
Young Earth Creationism
Old Earth Creationism
Intelligent Design
"Microevolution" vs."Macroevolution"

A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.

The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an innacurate assesment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cainozoic is because the coelacanth's current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.

[edit] History of term

Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:

These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]

Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.

Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:

Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]

This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:

According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]

This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.

Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.



Living fossil - RationalWiki

Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?

A dose of reality junior.

Living-Fossils.com

really?
not if you got your info from this:



All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry, possess exactly the same splendor and perfection as their counterparts that existed millions of years ago. Once all evolutionist speculation and claims are eliminated, the fact of creation is revealed for all to see—albeit in a manner totally unexpected by evolutionists.

"Living fossils" are proofs that all the living things on Earth, past and present, were created from nothing; and that each one, possessing complex and superior attributes, is a miracle of God. This means that in fact, the supposed developmental process that evolutionists claim took place over millions of years never happened at all. Fictitious intermediate forms disappear along with fictitious scena.....http://www.living-fossils.com/4_1.php
edit for obvious pseudoscience content.

you and reality parted company long ago... that's assuming you ever met at all....and I DON'T assume..

 

[daws101]

Well you're not relying on facts you're relying on opinions which in turn is reduced to faith. What are these so called facts ?

asked and answered..
example: we know dinosaurs existed as there is evidence to prove it.
you however, cannot prove any of the events in the bible ever happened.
there is no quantifiable evidence supporting the narratives.

We know dinosaurs existed because the Bible says so in the book of Job. Their fossils exist today, because they became so big that when they were finally buried in mud by the Flood their fossilized remains prove much easier to find. Man today is so determined to prove evolution and millions of years that he tosses data out to the contrary and makes "scientific" assumptions that actually contradict what miners have found while digging for minerals. They have to throw in extraterrestrials to make sense of seemingly illogical data being found today...

 

[daws101]

Watch the history channel more and you will see them.

Brilliant. So you get your science from the history channel. The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap. Try reading a book. Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.

I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.

I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?

your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...

 

[daws101]

The way I see it some of us were created and some of us came from monkeys. If you really want your ancestry to be primates I'll oblige. I just came from the side where human beings were created.

yeah the ones at the shallow end of the gene pool.

 

[daws101]

And I from RIT.

My point is that these shows on the history channel are there for ratings. They don't give one shit about truth, or real research, study or science. The truth takes a back seat to ratings every time.

There may be some nut out there proposing such nonsense. But it's a position held by virtually 0% of serious scientist and yet these shows put them on even footing with theories held by the top minds in the country. If you watch them for anything more than entertainment you are making a mistake.

Of course that television station wants ratings but do you think these men and women would risk their reputations they built over many years for ratings ?

Anyone who would stand by that hypothesis has no reputation to worry about. They are most likely already labeled a crackpot. But it does depend somewhat on the phrasing, and this is critical.

If a scientist were to say, "It is possible, extremely unlikely, but theoretically possible, that life as we know it started by little green men showing up and spreading seeds all over the planet." And a producer took that statement and did an entire 'documentary' on that statement, the scientist can't really be blamed.

The producer of the show is taking what is seen by everyone of any value as a fringe possibility and putting it out there as if it were a mainstream idea.

This is what these shows do for ratings. The more fringe, the more crazy, the more spectacular the notion, the more they love it. The more play it receives. So people are left with a skewed notion of what is likely.

having been in that biz here's what happens a writer or producer will pitch an show idea if accepted it will be researched then it will be "worked" to fit a target audience.
take a show like ancient aliens or bible secrets reveled ,the producers know from experience and focus groups that most of target audience has a short attention span is not, for the most part college educated, so any complex ideas must be presented in the simplest, broadest strokes .
this has more to do with the pace of the show and the attention and retention handicaps of the target viewer then anything else.
other then ratings the reason for this is to make the viewers "think" they actually learned something profound.
for real science, history, and current events documentaries watch PBS..NOVA, NATURE, AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, FRONTLINE are all excellent.

 

[Underhill]

Brilliant. So you get your science from the history channel. The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap. Try reading a book. Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.

I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.

I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?

your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...

Not to nitpick, but 1 in 100 would be 1% of the time...

 

[daws101]

I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.

I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?

your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...

Not to nitpick, but 1 in 100 would be 1% of the time...

I did say unless my math is wrong....but thanks!

 

[Youwerecreated]

another creationist piece of bullshit propaganda!

Living fossil

Coelacanths have changed quite a bit since Styloichthys[wp]. The claim that they have remained completely unchanged is simply untrue.
Part of the series on
Evolution

Icon evolution.svg
People
Charles Darwin
Gregor Mendel
Alfred Russel Wallace
Richard Dawkins
Jerry Coyne

Science
Chimpanzee
Endurance running hypothesis
Stephen Jay Gould
Xenicibis

Pseudoscience
Young Earth Creationism
Old Earth Creationism
Intelligent Design
"Microevolution" vs."Macroevolution"

A living Lingula that's actually similar to its ancestors 450 million years ago.
A living fossil is a species (or sometimes a higher group) has an extensive fossil record but also retains known living specimens. Creationists love them as they appear to deny evolution, not realising that morphological adaptations are not selected in a stable environment. Living fossils are sometimes Lazarus taxa[wp], i.e. they disappear from the fossil record and are presumed extinct but are later found alive.

The coelacanth is said to be a living fossil that has not changed at all between its fossil form and the living fish we know today,[1] but this is an innacurate assesment.[2] The most common misconception about the coelacanth is that the living Latimeria is of the same sort as the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic coelacanth. Although it is related to an order of much smaller fish from millions of years ago, coelacanths make up an entire order (Coelacanthiformes) of which the Latimeria is the sole living survivor. The gap throughout the Cainozoic is because the coelacanth's current habitat is in deep water, where fossilisation rarely happens.
The dawn redwood Metasequoia was thought to be extinct, until a grove of them was found in China in the mid-20th century. It is related to similar species that lived until about 5 million years ago.
One sort of bivalve-coelomate, the Lingula, has a fossil record extending to the Ordovician, with close relatives going all the way to the Cambrian.

[edit] History of term

Charles Darwin coined the term "living fossil" in The Origin of Species. In reference to several genera of fresh water fish, he noted:

These anomalous forms may almost be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having thus been exposed to less severe competition. [3]

Note that Darwin also provides an explanation as to why living fossils do not contradict the tenets of evolution.

Since then, creationists have latched onto living fossils, believing they provide evidence against evolution. Harun Yahya explains it:

Countless living things have remained unchanged for millions of years, and their current anatomical structures are exactly the same as they were millions of years ago. The fossil record is almost complete with both animal and plant specimens demonstrating this. It definitively and scientifically refutes evolution. [4]

This claim fails to recognise that, although evolution predicts that species can change, it does not require that species must change. [5] This is due in part to a misunderstanding of how evolution resulted in the development of new species. Yahya further explains:

According to the theory, all living things have descended from various "ancestral" forms. A living species that existed before gradually turned into another species, and every present species emerged in this way. According to the theory, this transition took place slowly over hundreds of millions of years and progressed in stages. That being the case, countless numbers of "intermediate forms" must have emerged and lived over the long process of transition in question. [6]

This interpretation assumes that the tempo of evolution is gradual and steady. Contrary to this assumption, the mode of evolution proposed by Darwin, while incremental, is not equivalent to phyletic gradualism. [7] Thus it is unlikely that diversification took place because one species "gradually turned into another species." As indicated by the fossil evidence, most new species probably developed by rapidly branching from ancestral species followed by long periods of evolutionary stasis.

Some living fossils like lungfish can be problematic for creationists.



Living fossil - RationalWiki

Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?

A dose of reality junior.

Living-Fossils.com

really?
not if you got your info from this:



All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry, possess exactly the same splendor and perfection as their counterparts that existed millions of years ago. Once all evolutionist speculation and claims are eliminated, the fact of creation is revealed for all to see—albeit in a manner totally unexpected by evolutionists.

"Living fossils" are proofs that all the living things on Earth, past and present, were created from nothing; and that each one, possessing complex and superior attributes, is a miracle of God. This means that in fact, the supposed developmental process that evolutionists claim took place over millions of years never happened at all. Fictitious intermediate forms disappear along with fictitious scena.....Living-Fossils.com
edit for obvious pseudoscience content.

you and reality parted company long ago... that's assuming you ever met at all....and I DON'T assume..

Why don't you explain the evidence presented ? You have fossils that have been dated from the very very distant past and there is no evolutionary change for the same organism that is alive and well today. why is that daws ?

Did the mechanism for evolution stop working ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Brilliant. So you get your science from the history channel. The same channel that brings us "The Bible", "Pawn Stars" and other such claptrap. Try reading a book. Preferably one not printed by Moody or Discover House.

I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.

I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?

your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...

Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.

It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The way I see it some of us were created and some of us came from monkeys. If you really want your ancestry to be primates I'll oblige. I just came from the side where human beings were created.

yeah the ones at the shallow end of the gene pool.

How Ironic.

Can you give me a brief summary on gene expression please ? I am gonna give you the strongest evidence for an intelligent designer.

 

[Hollie]

The way I see it some of us were created and some of us came from monkeys. If you really want your ancestry to be primates I'll oblige. I just came from the side where human beings were created.

yeah the ones at the shallow end of the gene pool.

How Ironic.

Can you give me a brief summary on gene expression please ? I am gonna give you the strongest evidence for an intelligent designer.

Please spare us your typical cutting and pasting from fundie websites as alleged "pwoof" of your gawds.

 

[Hollie]

Question, how do you know the organisms you refer to are nothing more than similar species gone extinct ? How do you prove they evolved ?

A dose of reality junior.

Living-Fossils.com

really?
not if you got your info from this:



All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry, possess exactly the same splendor and perfection as their counterparts that existed millions of years ago. Once all evolutionist speculation and claims are eliminated, the fact of creation is revealed for all to see—albeit in a manner totally unexpected by evolutionists.

"Living fossils" are proofs that all the living things on Earth, past and present, were created from nothing; and that each one, possessing complex and superior attributes, is a miracle of God. This means that in fact, the supposed developmental process that evolutionists claim took place over millions of years never happened at all. Fictitious intermediate forms disappear along with fictitious scena.....Living-Fossils.com
edit for obvious pseudoscience content.

you and reality parted company long ago... that's assuming you ever met at all....and I DON'T assume..

Why don't you explain the evidence presented ? You have fossils that have been dated from the very very distant past and there is no evolutionary change for the same organism that is alive and well today. why is that daws ?

Did the mechanism for evolution stop working ?

Oh good gawd, man. Not Harun Yahya again.

 

[Underhill]

I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.

I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?

your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...

Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.

It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.

Actually I was referring to serious people in that field of study. Most of them have degrees I would guess, but there is a bit more to it than that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

yeah the ones at the shallow end of the gene pool.

How Ironic.

Can you give me a brief summary on gene expression please ? I am gonna give you the strongest evidence for an intelligent designer.

Please spare us your typical cutting and pasting from fundie websites as alleged "pwoof" of your gawds.

I don't need to copy and paste as you and your buddies do about things I know about.

 

[Youwerecreated]

really?
not if you got your info from this:



All these specimens manifest one single truth: Living things did not come into being through the fictitious processes of the theory of evolution, but were created in a single moment. Today's living things, with all their perfect features as manifestations of God's superior artistry, possess exactly the same splendor and perfection as their counterparts that existed millions of years ago. Once all evolutionist speculation and claims are eliminated, the fact of creation is revealed for all to see—albeit in a manner totally unexpected by evolutionists.

"Living fossils" are proofs that all the living things on Earth, past and present, were created from nothing; and that each one, possessing complex and superior attributes, is a miracle of God. This means that in fact, the supposed developmental process that evolutionists claim took place over millions of years never happened at all. Fictitious intermediate forms disappear along with fictitious scena.....Living-Fossils.com
edit for obvious pseudoscience content.

you and reality parted company long ago... that's assuming you ever met at all....and I DON'T assume..

Why don't you explain the evidence presented ? You have fossils that have been dated from the very very distant past and there is no evolutionary change for the same organism that is alive and well today. why is that daws ?

Did the mechanism for evolution stop working ?

Oh good gawd, man. Not Harun Yahya again.

Good Lord another dodge of the evidence

 

[HUGGY]

I do watch it yes and most speakers speaking on science and history on the channels hold degrees in the information being discussed.

I hold a degree from the University of Arizona what is your point ?

your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...

Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.

It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.

By degree do you mean "Dr."? By a respected college? I find it astonishing that someone could invest that much time in the quest for learning and be co-signed by teaching authorities to receive a high degree and still believe in a god in this day and age. It does not say much for the education when what someone "wants" to believe is verified by what someone else "wants" to teach even though ALL evidense suggests otherwise and NO evidense supports it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...

Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.

It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.

Actually I was referring to serious people in that field of study. Most of them have degrees I would guess, but there is a bit more to it than that.

Of course there are and by the way I don't believe that theory either.

Stephen Hawking has appeared on both the discovery channel and the History channel you can add Jane Goodall and James Hansen to that list as well of well known scientist that participated in documentaries on these channels.

 

[Youwerecreated]

your degree has dick to do with this discussion.
in the better then 1000 pages in this thread, you've pointed out a least one hundred times that you have a degree unless my math is wrong, that's one time for every 100 pages or 10% which is far more then all of the rest of us who have degrees combined. so stfu...

Really Genius ? The point was he was referring to people that hold degrees that believe theories that he does not believe are merely crackpots. Yes my degree in science has plenty to do with what gets discussed in this thread.

It Just burns you up that what I hold a degree in, is beyond your comprehension.

By degree do you mean "Dr."? By a respected college? I find it astonishing that someone could invest that much time in the quest for learning and be co-signed by teaching authorities to receive a high degree and still believe in a god in this day and age. It does not say much for the education when what someone "wants" to believe is verified by what someone else "wants" to teach even though ALL evidense suggests otherwise and NO evidense supports it.

My education has been discussed many times here and yes from the University of Arizona. Sorry to bust your bubble but there are many of us.