‘Living fossil’ rediscovered in Pacific Ocean after 273 million years

You’re a 3 year old screaming on the floor because you’re clueless and not getting your way.
Oops, wrong again. Better check the scoreboard, Cletus. You would fail a 6th grade science quiz, and the global scientific community agrees with me. I "got my way" long ago.
 
You’re a 3 year old screaming on the floor because you’re clueless and not getting your way.
Oops, wrong again. Better check the scoreboard, Cletus. You would fail a 6th grade science quiz, and the global scientific community agrees with me. I "got my way" long ago.
Says Shitforbrains who just supported what I said about fossil creation.
 
Oh gee. A quick burial in mud.
Which describes nearly none of the things i mentioned. Do you even know what a cast is? Stop being such a rabid moron, you might learn something, here.
You’re a dumbass stuck trying to defend why there’s hundreds of thousands of examples of zero evolution over millions of years and thinking there’s such a thing as a new gene.
 
You’re a dumbass stuck trying to defend why there’s hundreds of thousands of examples of zero evolution over millions of years
Oops, wrong again. Damn dude. How embarrassing.

Hilarious! They can evolve, but we just don’t have any evidence they ever have over 200 million years!
3CBF9F83-4C37-46D5-A85A-3AC410903ADD.gif
 
They can evolve, but we just don’t have any evidence they ever have over 200 million years!
You’re a dumbass stuck trying to defend why there’s hundreds of thousands of examples of zero evolution over millions of years
Oops, wrong again. Damn dude. How embarrassing.

Hilarious! They can evolve, but we just don’t have any evidence they ever have over 200 million years!
View attachment 493184
Oops, 100% wrong again. We do have evidence. Lots of it. In fact, some was clearly stated in the article i spoonfed to you.

Damn son. You are on some kind of streak.
 
They can evolve, but we just don’t have any evidence they ever have over 200 million years!
You’re a dumbass stuck trying to defend why there’s hundreds of thousands of examples of zero evolution over millions of years
Oops, wrong again. Damn dude. How embarrassing.

Hilarious! They can evolve, but we just don’t have any evidence they ever have over 200 million years!
View attachment 493184
Oops, 100% wrong again. We do have evidence. Lots of it. In fact, some was clearly stated in the article i spoonfed to you.

Damn son. You are on some kind of streak.
Yeah, that’s why you can’t link to any, and when you do give a link it validates my point.
 
Quote:

Evolution.

You learned about it in high school.

It goes like this: Life started out with very simple forms and then gradually, over hundreds of millions of years, morphed into all the forms we see today. Bacteria to Beethoven. Not a straight line, of course…but that’s roughly how it went.

This was the theory proposed by Charles Darwin in 1859, and, with some modification, it has been embraced as unassailable by the science community over the last century. As evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says, “If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is either ignorant, stupid or insane.”

But is that right? Are there no scientific reasons to doubt the evolutionary account of life’s origins?

In November 2016, I attended a conference in London convened by some of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists. The purpose: to address growing doubts about the modern version of Darwin’s theory.

Let’s look at just two scientific reasons to doubt this theory.

First, the Cambrian Explosion. A weird and wonderful thing happened 530 million years ago: A whole bunch of major groups of animals—what scientists call the “phyla”—appeared abruptly within a geologically short window of time—about ten million years.

These novel animal forms—exhibiting proto-types of most animal body designs we see today—emerged in the fossil record without evidence of earlier ancestors.

Did you catch that? A huge number of diverse animals appeared, with no discernible antecedents.

So where did they come from?

This question really bothered Darwin. And he acknowledged that he could give it “no satisfactory answer.” Nor can scientists today.

The renowned biologist Eugene Koonin, of the National Center for Biotechnology Information, describes the abrupt appearance of the Cambrian animals and other organisms such as dinosaurs, birds, flowering plants and mammals as a pattern of “biological Big Bangs.”

So what caused all these new forms of life to arise? That question leads to a second big doubt: the DNA enigma.

In the 1950s, James Watson and Francis Crick made a startling discovery: The DNA molecule stores information as a four-character digital code. Strings of precisely sequenced chemicals inside the DNA helix store the instructions—the information—for building the crucial proteins that cells need to survive. Unless the chemical “letters” in the DNA text are sequenced properly, a protein molecule will not form. No proteins; no cells. No cells; no living organisms.

Bill Gates has said, “DNA is like a software program.” Let’s think about that for a second. For computers to run faster and perform more functions, they require new code. Well, the same is true for life: To build new forms of life, the evolutionary process would need to produce new genetic information—new code.

But this raises questions about the creative power of natural selection and mutation. Natural selection is a simple sorting process. Species keep favorable mutations that allow them to survive but eliminate bad mutations that cause their members to die out. No one doubts that natural selection is a real process and that it produces minor variations, but many biologists now doubt that it produces major innovations in biological form.

To see why, think again about software. What happens if you introduce a few random changes into computer code? You’ll likely mess it up, right? Though it might still work—if you don’t make too many changes. But if you make enough random changes, your program will stop functioning altogether. You certainly can’t keep doing this and expect some cool, new program to pop out. There’s a mathematical reason for this. In all codes and languages, there are vastly more ways of arranging characters that will generate gibberish than there are arrangements that will generate meaningful sequences.

And this applies to DNA.

Remember, natural selection only “selects” sequences that random mutations generate. Yet experiments have established that DNA sequences capable of making stable proteins are extremely rare—and, thus, really hard to stumble on randomly.

How rare? While working at Cambridge University, molecular biologist Douglas Axe showed that, for every DNA sequence that generates a relatively short functional protein, there are 10 to the 77th power nonfunctional sequences.

Now consider that there are only 10 to the 65th power atoms in our galaxy. So finding a new DNA sequence capable of building a functional protein is like searching blindfolded for a single marked atom among a trillion Milky Way galaxies. Talk about a needle in a haystack!

As I show in my book Darwin’s Doubt, even 4 billion years of life’s history is not enough time to overcome a search problem this big.

So, two serious doubts about modern Darwinian theory: The Cambrian Explosion—the sudden appearance of new animals, which evolutionary theory has failed to explain; and the DNA enigma—the implausibility of random mutations producing the information needed to build new forms of animal life.

Scientists who know about these problems are not “ignorant, stupid, or insane;” they are just appropriately skeptical.

I’m Stephen Meyer, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, for Prager University.
Yes. Stephen Meyer, the charlatan. He's a hack, a non-scientist and a flunkie for the most notoriously anti-science ID'iot creationer organizations in the U.S.



Stephen C. Meyer is a philosopher and one of the hotshots of the Discovery Institute. And like some philosophers and all Discovery Institute people, he likes to make grand claims about scientific fields about which he must be counted as an illiterate. Meyer helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the major hive for the ID creationist movement. Meyer is currently vice president and a senior fellow at CSC, and a director of the Access Research Network. He has been described as “the person who brought ID (intelligent design) to DI (Discovery Institute)”, he contributed to the second edition of Dean Kenyon’s “Of Pandas and People”, wrote (with Ralph Seelke) the ID textbook “Explore Evolution”, was appointed by the Texas Board of Education to be on the committee reviewing Texas’s science curriculum standards, is the primary link to DI sponsor and Taliban theocrat loon Howard Ahmanson, and was partly responsible for the Wedge Strategy, as well as an active speaker and debate panelist.

In 1999, Meyer (with David DeWolf and Mark DeForrest) designed a legal strategy for introducing intelligent design into public schools in the book “Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum.” (I mean, the point of ID is to get creationism and religion into the schools, not to do science). He is perhaps most famous for trying to realize the strategy through helping to introduce ID to the Dover Area School District (more extensively here), and for his ridiculous 2009 book “Signature in the Cell” (which a probably drunk/dementia suffering Thomas Nagel actually praised, flaunting his own ignorance of science). PZ Myers was offered a review copy by Meyer’s assistant Janet Oberembt, but never received it. The book actually makes twelve “predictions” for ID (although they are not predictions in the ordinary scientific sense because they are not derived from any concrete theory, and they all concern testing the theory of evolution, not ID). He also offers a “theory”. The theory is unrelated to the predictions. He derives no predictions from his theory. He offers nothing resembling a coherent justification either, so the book didn’t receive much positive feedback from actual scientists. He has offered some appeals to authority, however (“Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a Darwinist”).
In March 2002 he announced the “teach the controversy” strategy aimed at promoting the false idea that the theory of evolution is controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education. Since Meyer knows this is false, he was lying, but dishonesty isn’t exactly a surprising trait in ID advocates. The presentation included a bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of what was referred to as "”Darwinian evolution”. When NCSE contacted the authors, none of the authors who responded (the authors of thirty-four of the papers) thought that their research provided evidence against evolution. Meyer also publicly claimed that the “Santorum Amendment” was part of the Education Bill, and therefore that the State of Ohio was required to teach alternative theories to evolution as part of its biology curriculum. Which is demonstrably false, but tells you a lot about the DI creationists.

Of course, he thinks there is active persecution of the purportedly fast-growing number of scientists rejecting evolution in Academia (probably because he cannot find any). He was interviewed about those claims in Expelled.
Diagnosis: One of the staunchest, most influential, most dishonest anti-science advocates in the world. Crackpot and complete hack.
 
Last edited:
please explain why over 90% of species that have lived on this planet are now extinct
So that disproves the existence of a creator?
I'd say it disproves the story of Genesis as being historical.
In your dreams.
The fact there are hundreds of thousands of species that have not changed over millions of years tosses the racist Darwin out the window.
No it doesn't, it just shows how effective evolution is in creating species adapted to their environment.

So how does the fact that there were no dinos, then there were, and now they're gone square with Genesis?
Where do you get this stuff? Dinos existed then became extinct because they couldn’t adapt to the post flood climate.
If you dig deep enough you find rock layers with no dinos. Where did they come from?
You obviously don’t know that it takes an instantaneous burial in mud to create a fossil. Like what a massive flood does.
Like a massive (global) flood 4,000 years ago?

Well, that didn't happen so there goes your silly 'dinosaurs on the Ark' conspiracy theory.
 
Hollie, do you have a theory on how everything came into existence? Do you acknowledge the possibility that a "higher" being created the universe and everything within it?
 
Hollie, do you have a theory on how everything came into existence? Do you acknowledge the possibility that a "higher" being created the universe and everything within it?
Sure. Existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy, life evolved in some places, competition for that life implemented social structures, sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree.

Everything 'came into existence' with the expansion of the universe. There is every reason to accept a naturalistic origin of the universe as opposed to aby claimed supernatural origin. It is a pretty simple matter that the supernaturalists fail to comprehend; they need to provide some support for the existence of their supernatural gods before they can assign universe building tasks to them.

There is nothing to indicate your gods or anyone else’s gods caused the expansion. Can you offer anything to indicate that a supernatural event caused by your gods was the reason?

The chemistry of the universe makes the building blocks of life abundant. Why would your particular gods make the universe so vast, put in place the chemical compounds that support life and then abandon it all by making the planet 6,000 years ago and supernaturally creating life on the planet?
 
Hollie, is it possible that, what you call "supernatural" or "gods" is simply an all-powerful being that created the universe and all that is within it? My impression of atheists is that they seem incapable, or unwilling, to think "outside the box". To them, the idea that there is such a being out there is simply too fantastic an idea for them to entertain.

Do you play video games? Computer programmers create virtual "worlds". So why is it too fantastic an idea to believe that we were created in a similar manner? Albeit, the difference between us and characters in a video game is that we have independent thought whereas video game characters do not.

I personally believe that the crux of unbelief is spiritual. And the vitriol that I frequently witness directed against believers by atheists confirms to me that they are under dark, demonic, influence.

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
 
Hollie, is it possible that, what you call "supernatural" or "gods" is simply an all-powerful being that created the universe and all that is within it? My impression of atheists is that they seem incapable, or unwilling, to think "outside the box". To them, the idea that there is such a being out there is simply too fantastic an idea for them to entertain.

Do you play video games? Computer programmers create virtual "worlds". So why is it too fantastic an idea to believe that we were created in a similar manner? Albeit, the difference between us and characters in a video game is that we have independent thought whereas video game characters do not.

I personally believe that the crux of unbelief is spiritual. And the vitriol that I frequently witness directed against believers by atheists confirms to me that they are under dark, demonic, influence.

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
I think you're uncomfortable with the term ''supernatural'', but a claimed ''all-powerful being that created the universe and all that is within ii" identifies something un-natural or supernatural.

Most cultures have thought ''outside the box'' to explain natural forces they didn't understand. They invented various gods who managed the forces of nature which were bewildering to them. Those natural forces were not supernaturally created, just not understood. The Christian fundamentalist revulsion for science is precisely because of the exploration being undertaken by science. Science has reduced the job requirements for the christian gods. Where once it was believed that the gods opened every flower petal and oversaw every human endeavor, now the gods are relegated to sitting on thrones and paper shuffling.

The gods of the socio-cultural landscape you were born into are a distillation of earlier gods you probably scoff at as being the product of fear and superstition. Are the 330,000,000 Hindu gods any less relevant or ''real'' to someone born into the socio-cultural landscape if Hinduism?

Why did you offer 'quotes' from the bible as opposed to quotes from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita? Why is the religion you were born into (and the gods invented to manage those religions) 'true' as opposed to other religions?



“Life is meaningful; death is meaningless and religion’s greatest betrayal to the humanity is that it gave a meaning to death, it wrongly made the death as meaningful! Declaring an ultimate ‘end’ as a hopeful ‘exit’ to somewhere is the biggest crime of the religion!”
― Mehmet Murat ildan



Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel. [The Age of Reason]
 
Hollie, is it possible that, what you call "supernatural" or "gods" is simply an all-powerful being that created the universe and all that is within it? My impression of atheists is that they seem incapable, or unwilling, to think "outside the box". To them, the idea that there is such a being out there is simply too fantastic an idea for them to entertain.

Do you play video games? Computer programmers create virtual "worlds". So why is it too fantastic an idea to believe that we were created in a similar manner? Albeit, the difference between us and characters in a video game is that we have independent thought whereas video game characters do not.

I personally believe that the crux of unbelief is spiritual. And the vitriol that I frequently witness directed against believers by atheists confirms to me that they are under dark, demonic, influence.

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

"I personally believe that the crux of unbelief is spiritual. And the vitriol that I frequently witness directed against believers by atheists confirms to me that they are under dark, demonic, influence."

Interesting comment.

There is a thread in the Religion and Ethics forum entitled "Atheists view Christians with contempt and derision''.

So really, who is it that is ''under dark, demonic, influence."?
 
Hollie, is it possible that, what you call "supernatural" or "gods" is simply an all-powerful being that created the universe and all that is within it? My impression of atheists is that they seem incapable, or unwilling, to think "outside the box". To them, the idea that there is such a being out there is simply too fantastic an idea for them to entertain.

Do you play video games? Computer programmers create virtual "worlds". So why is it too fantastic an idea to believe that we were created in a similar manner? Albeit, the difference between us and characters in a video game is that we have independent thought whereas video game characters do not.

I personally believe that the crux of unbelief is spiritual. And the vitriol that I frequently witness directed against believers by atheists confirms to me that they are under dark, demonic, influence.

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

"I personally believe that the crux of unbelief is spiritual. And the vitriol that I frequently witness directed against believers by atheists confirms to me that they are under dark, demonic, influence."

Interesting comment.

There is a thread in the Religion and Ethics forum entitled "Atheists view Christians with contempt and derision''.

So really, who is it that is ''under dark, demonic, influence."?
Yea, I created that thread.

If you peruse social media, any mention of God is met with immediate derision and hatred from atheists.

Jesus warned us that this would happen.

Matthew 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
 
The Christian fundamentalist revulsion for science
I believe science is on the side of creation. By the way, ask a committed leftist how many genders there are and then tell me how the left follows science.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top