Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We've watched it happen in ring species that can no longer interbreed. We've watched it in bacteria and viruses in labs and in the wild. It doesn't take billions upon billions on years to illustrate the point.
Older T. rex fossils show larger eye ridges than later T. rex fossils. We can see the changes within the existence of a single species from the time it came on the scene to its extinction.
Give me something better than an "older T-rex fossil" please. That thing's so old that even the rain and wind has worn it away. Show me a half-bird, half-fish or something. Show me your monkey doing algebra.
Wear and tear on fossils is well understood. The features he describes above are not due to wear and tear. If you believe they are, then I challenge you to prove your claim to us that those features are due to wear and tear.
Give me something that isn't billions or millions of years old. If your evolution myth is true and ongoing, you should be able to show me something a recent as 100 years. Specimens should be plentiful and found all over the earth that are fairly fresh.
Erm, why would I do that? I am not the one who disagrees with the rest of the world's scientists. I'm also not the one who believes that the world is flat and 6,000 years old. And besides, you still haven't proven your claim that the features in question were caused by wear and tear.
In other words you can't. That's the hard truth of it. None of you can. You're all gas and hot air.
You shouldn't think your phony "christian math" has shown anything but the sheer fraud that oozes from your creation ministries.And when you have that adaptation over thousands of generations among diverse populations? All "macroevolution" is really is just "microevoution" over the long term.
It doesn't even necessarily need to be over the long term. We've seen the effects on breeding populations in ring species. Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Yes, it has to be over the very very long term. Such a long term in fact that the earth itself is not old enough for it to have happened.
4.57 billion years is plenty long enough.
I'm waiting. I showed you mathematically that it was impossible. A statement means nothing. Show me mathematically how it is possible. I'm willing to listen.
At least I can do math. It is apparent that you cannot.
I own you over Noah. You still haven't explained properly how Noah got marsupials from Oz and back again. Polar bears. Arctic foxes...lol....the concept of Taz actually winning a debate with someone.....that's why I come here....a little bit of humor to brighten my day....Cuz I own you and you have nothing, you pipsqueek.
You own no one over Noah. You went on there with kangaroos on your brain and asked your question. You received many responses including one from me. Your mind was already made up so you dismissed each and every response you received and attacked those kind enough to respond to you. You made a total ass out of yourself and the people stopped engaging you. The problem is that you are simply too ignorant to realize that they all quickly saw that you were a total asshole.
Case in point. . .
<rant snip>
I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.
Which means nothing. I'm not an amateur geologist. I am a real, degreed, certified professional geologist with 24 years of field and lab experience. Now that we are done dick-waving, care to explain in detail how the Earth came to be, how old you believe it to be, and on what scientific evidence you base your conclusions?
According to current theory, the Earth formed just like the Sun and the other planets in our solar system, with the Sun, of course, being the largest lump of matter retained after the gravitational collapse of our system's hydrogen cloud/nebula: space dust clustered into grains, then lumps of matter, then boulders, then planetesimals and eventually planets. The Sun, being the largest and densest lump of matter, heated up, generating its own energy in nuclear fires.
Not quite. The sun is a star composed primarily of hydrogen and helium. It was formed from a bok globule composed primarily of gas and dust. When a nearby supernova shockwave crashed into the globule, it collapsed, likely forming an Herbig-Haro object, which eventually became the sun. The planets were not formed in this manner. The planets formed via accretion from the orbiting debris left over from the sun's formation, with Jupiter and Saturn receiving the bulk of the remaining hydrogen and helium from the solar nebula. The dust and other debris left over formed the remaining planets, including the Earth.
Rawlings said:The various constituents of the our primordial "dust plain" as distinguished from the primordial dust plains of other systems is thought to be about 4.6 to 5 billion years old. The universe is thought to be nearly 14 billion years old.
Give or take a few million, yes.
Rawlings said:The Earth as such is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Its age is calculated on the bases of the currently oldest known terrestrial rock (the Australian Zircon) via radiometric dating coupled with the age of the solar system. The Australian Zircon is not quite as old as the Earth itself, of course, as older parts of the Earth's surface are recycled in the Earth's core as a result of plate tectonics, but it gives us the bottom range of the Earth's age against which we have the radiometrically determined age of meteorite fragments such as those of the asteroid that created the Barringer Crater. Ultimately, then, we know that the Earth is the same age as these fragments.
The crust of the Earth is not recycled back into the core. It is recycled back into the mantle. Big difference.
The crust of the Earth is not recycled back into the core. It is recycled back into the mantle. Big difference.
Case in point. . .
<rant snip>
I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.
Which means nothing. I'm not an amateur geologist. I am a real, degreed, certified professional geologist with 24 years of field and lab experience. Now that we are done dick-waving, care to explain in detail how the Earth came to be, how old you believe it to be, and on what scientific evidence you base your conclusions?
According to current theory, the Earth formed just like the Sun and the other planets in our solar system, with the Sun, of course, being the largest lump of matter retained after the gravitational collapse of our system's hydrogen cloud/nebula: space dust clustered into grains, then lumps of matter, then boulders, then planetesimals and eventually planets. The Sun, being the largest and densest lump of matter, heated up, generating its own energy in nuclear fires.
Not quite. The sun is a star composed primarily of hydrogen and helium. It was formed from a bok globule composed primarily of gas and dust. When a nearby supernova shockwave crashed into the globule, it collapsed, likely forming an Herbig-Haro object, which eventually became the sun. The planets were not formed in this manner. The planets formed via accretion from the orbiting debris left over from the sun's formation, with Jupiter and Saturn receiving the bulk of the remaining hydrogen and helium from the solar nebula. The dust and other debris left over formed the remaining planets, including the Earth.
Rawlings said:The various constituents of the our primordial "dust plain" as distinguished from the primordial dust plains of other systems is thought to be about 4.6 to 5 billion years old. The universe is thought to be nearly 14 billion years old.
Give or take a few million, yes.
Rawlings said:The Earth as such is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Its age is calculated on the bases of the currently oldest known terrestrial rock (the Australian Zircon) via radiometric dating coupled with the age of the solar system. The Australian Zircon is not quite as old as the Earth itself, of course, as older parts of the Earth's surface are recycled in the Earth's core as a result of plate tectonics, but it gives us the bottom range of the Earth's age against which we have the radiometrically determined age of meteorite fragments such as those of the asteroid that created the Barringer Crater. Ultimately, then, we know that the Earth is the same age as these fragments.
The crust of the Earth is not recycled back into the core. It is recycled back into the mantle. Big difference.
Well, I'm writing from memory from the few courses I took regarding these matters, and, yes, of course, hydrogen was not the only element contained in the primordial cloud/nebula. I realize that. But it was the primary element along with helium and dust, and your statement regarding the formation of the planets and mine are the same. I don't know why you say they weren't formed in the manner in which I roughly sketched.
Your statement: "The planets formed via accretion from the orbiting debris left over from the sun's formation, with Jupiter and Saturn receiving the bulk of the remaining hydrogen and helium from the solar nebula. The dust and other debris left over formed the remaining planets, including the Earth."
Mine: ". . . space dust clustered into grains, then lumps of matter, then boulders, then planetesimals and eventually planets."
The operative process here is the accretion of the leftover debris, is it not? The sun and all of the planets are roughly the same age.
The crust of the Earth is not recycled back into the core. It is recycled back into the mantle. Big difference.
Okay. That makes sense. That was poorly put, for indeed, as I recall, the Earth's layers are: crust, softer mantle, harder mantle, outer core (liquid nickel iron), inner core (solid). You're the geologist.
But this reminds of a question I had some time ago and forgot about. I'm guessing that the heat of the outer core is transferred to the mantle. It would seem to me then that the inner core should be gradually growing. Is that believed to be the case?
why didn't you simply say "oh fuck, now I don't know what to say...I had better make something up I can accuse him of in order to distract the readers from my ignorance".....we all knew that was happening anyway........Obvious indications that you also failed the curriculum at the Pat Robertson madrassah.not at all....unlimited flexibility is not a flaw.....most cancerous cells are the result of the abuse we put our bodies through with things like nicotine and other carcinogens.....is it also a flaw that God did not design our skulls to be impervious to games of Russian roulette?......literally, the blueprint for a cancerous cell would be DNA, so I am forced to agree with you........Nah. That would be the blueprint for the cancer cell.....one of God's more interesting creations......
That suggests really incompetent design skills on the part of your gawds. Did none of your three gawds check the others' work?
previously debunked....Raw, I checked out your link, the guy is insane. He's obsessed with trying to disprove something (that he can't), so that his invisible friend will be the only other option. That's not how it works, you have it ass-backwards.The Real Answer: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html#/
The above is an article written by Prof. Doug Theobald published in the journal Nature, regarding the case for common descent. For the benefit of the angry fundies, I'll point out that this is what real scientists do: they publish in peer reviewed literature.
That's something that religious cranks don't do, for obvious reasons.
And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:
Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth
Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth
That is not how what works? You don't even know what you read, magical nature man.
Once again. . . .
And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:
Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth
Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth
Ah, yes. "Releasing the truth". Someone's personal blog. Not very convincing.
As usual for the hyper-religious types, there's always an absence of peer review for the fundie position.
29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 1
29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 2
so the obese couch potato who sells his vote for an Obamaphone would be Homo Sapien 3.0?........Homo Sapien 2.0so you believe we are turning into something other than the species homo sapien?.....That's a species evolving... It's a lot of tiny steps that over a long period of time add up. Now you know.dude....what do you have in a hundred years.....two, three generations?....that alone should be enough to clue you in that it isn't evolution that is involved.....its penicillin, child labor laws and improved diet.........Humans are evolving to live longer and get taller than they were 100 years ago.Give me something that isn't billions or millions of years old. If your evolution myth is true and ongoing, you should be able to show me something a recent as 100 years. Specimens should be plentiful and found all over the earth that are fairly fresh.
and people wonder why I consider atheists to be inferior......Does fatso have any actual proof of what he says or does he just blow long-winded fartsmoke all the time?
you would have to be a fucking idiot to claim there was dishonesty in that post......oh wait, its you.......I own you over Noah. You still haven't explained properly how Noah got marsupials from Oz and back again. Polar bears. Arctic foxes...lol....the concept of Taz actually winning a debate with someone.....that's why I come here....a little bit of humor to brighten my day....Cuz I own you and you have nothing, you pipsqueek.
You own no one over Noah. You went on there with kangaroos on your brain and asked your question. You received many responses including one from me. Your mind was already made up so you dismissed each and every response you received and attacked those kind enough to respond to you. You made a total ass out of yourself and the people stopped engaging you. The problem is that you are simply too ignorant to realize that they all quickly saw that you were a total asshole.
It always amazes me the level of sheer dishonesty we see in creationist attempts to prop up their faith.
Case in point. . .
<rant snip>
I'm an amateur biologist, with a solid formal background, though mostly self-taught thereafter, but that article is solid.
Which means nothing. I'm not an amateur geologist. I am a real, degreed, certified professional geologist with 24 years of field and lab experience. Now that we are done dick-waving, care to explain in detail how the Earth came to be, how old you believe it to be, and on what scientific evidence you base your conclusions?
According to current theory, the Earth formed just like the Sun and the other planets in our solar system, with the Sun, of course, being the largest lump of matter retained after the gravitational collapse of our system's hydrogen cloud/nebula: space dust clustered into grains, then lumps of matter, then boulders, then planetesimals and eventually planets. The Sun, being the largest and densest lump of matter, heated up, generating its own energy in nuclear fires.
Not quite. The sun is a star composed primarily of hydrogen and helium. It was formed from a bok globule composed primarily of gas and dust. When a nearby supernova shockwave crashed into the globule, it collapsed, likely forming an Herbig-Haro object, which eventually became the sun. The planets were not formed in this manner. The planets formed via accretion from the orbiting debris left over from the sun's formation, with Jupiter and Saturn receiving the bulk of the remaining hydrogen and helium from the solar nebula. The dust and other debris left over formed the remaining planets, including the Earth.
Rawlings said:The various constituents of the our primordial "dust plain" as distinguished from the primordial dust plains of other systems is thought to be about 4.6 to 5 billion years old. The universe is thought to be nearly 14 billion years old.
Give or take a few million, yes.
Rawlings said:The Earth as such is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Its age is calculated on the bases of the currently oldest known terrestrial rock (the Australian Zircon) via radiometric dating coupled with the age of the solar system. The Australian Zircon is not quite as old as the Earth itself, of course, as older parts of the Earth's surface are recycled in the Earth's core as a result of plate tectonics, but it gives us the bottom range of the Earth's age against which we have the radiometrically determined age of meteorite fragments such as those of the asteroid that created the Barringer Crater. Ultimately, then, we know that the Earth is the same age as these fragments.
The crust of the Earth is not recycled back into the core. It is recycled back into the mantle. Big difference.
Well, I'm writing from memory from the few courses I took regarding these matters, and, yes, of course, hydrogen was not the only element contained in the primordial cloud/nebula. I realize that. But it was the primary element along with helium and dust, and your statement regarding the formation of the planets and mine are the same. I don't know why you say they weren't formed in the manner in which I roughly sketched.
Your statement: "The planets formed via accretion from the orbiting debris left over from the sun's formation, with Jupiter and Saturn receiving the bulk of the remaining hydrogen and helium from the solar nebula. The dust and other debris left over formed the remaining planets, including the Earth."
Mine: ". . . space dust clustered into grains, then lumps of matter, then boulders, then planetesimals and eventually planets."
The operative process here is the accretion of the leftover debris, is it not? The sun and all of the planets are roughly the same age.
The You said: "the Earth formed just like the Sun and the other planets in our solar system", which is not the case. Not only where they not composed of the same elements, the processes were different.
You may still have a chance for acceptance at the Falwell madrassah. They're among the angrier, self-hating types.why didn't you simply say "oh fuck, now I don't know what to say...I had better make something up I can accuse him of in order to distract the readers from my ignorance".....we all knew that was happening anyway........Obvious indications that you also failed the curriculum at the Pat Robertson madrassah.not at all....unlimited flexibility is not a flaw.....most cancerous cells are the result of the abuse we put our bodies through with things like nicotine and other carcinogens.....is it also a flaw that God did not design our skulls to be impervious to games of Russian roulette?......literally, the blueprint for a cancerous cell would be DNA, so I am forced to agree with you........Nah. That would be the blueprint for the cancer cell.....
That suggests really incompetent design skills on the part of your gawds. Did none of your three gawds check the others' work?
Typically pointless.previously debunked....Raw, I checked out your link, the guy is insane. He's obsessed with trying to disprove something (that he can't), so that his invisible friend will be the only other option. That's not how it works, you have it ass-backwards.The Real Answer: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7295/full/nature09014.html#/
The above is an article written by Prof. Doug Theobald published in the journal Nature, regarding the case for common descent. For the benefit of the angry fundies, I'll point out that this is what real scientists do: they publish in peer reviewed literature.
That's something that religious cranks don't do, for obvious reasons.
And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:
Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth
Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth
That is not how what works? You don't even know what you read, magical nature man.
Once again. . . .
And then we have the fact that it's all based on a metaphysical presupposition, an apriority that presupposes a common ancestry and presumptuously accommodates/interprets the evidence in terms of a common ancestry . . . when all along the evidence is perfectly compatible with a biological history that is instead a series of discrete, creative events and extinctions over time within a microevolutionary model of adaptive diversity:
Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 1 Releasing the Truth
Debunking the 8220 29 evidences for macroevolution 8221 part 2 Releasing the Truth
Ah, yes. "Releasing the truth". Someone's personal blog. Not very convincing.
As usual for the hyper-religious types, there's always an absence of peer review for the fundie position.
29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 1
29 Evidences for Macroevolution Part 2
You're starting to understand evolution. Keep it up!so the obese couch potato who sells his vote for an Obamaphone would be Homo Sapien 3.0?........Homo Sapien 2.0so you believe we are turning into something other than the species homo sapien?.....That's a species evolving... It's a lot of tiny steps that over a long period of time add up. Now you know.dude....what do you have in a hundred years.....two, three generations?....that alone should be enough to clue you in that it isn't evolution that is involved.....its penicillin, child labor laws and improved diet.........Humans are evolving to live longer and get taller than they were 100 years ago.
Hey, in the spirit of the OP, if you REALLY want to delve into something that suggests God at work, look no further than the science of quantum physics and the subatomic universe. In quantum mechanics there is this phenomenon called "entangled particles" or "quantum entanglement." Einstein calls this "spooky action at a distance." Any subatomic particle can be connected to another identical particle billions of light years apart. Measuring and observing the parameters of one particle will dictate the properties of the other particle instantly. This means information is traveling billions of light years instantaneously, faster than the speed of light. Nothing has explained this in science and nothing logically can, it's beyond our comprehension, yet we know that it is happening.
The uncertainty principle of Werner Heisenberg is another mysterious phenomenon. As we've tried to pinpoint and measure certain fundamental elements of nature, we've learned that nature will not allow us to do so because nature doesn't know. This means we can never be certain of anything absolutely. Electrons and subatomic particles can be in two places at the same time or not exist at all and we can never accurately predict where they will be.
The infamous "double-slit experiment" is over 100 years old and remains perplexing to modern science. We can shoot photons through a barrier with two holes or slits, the particles will form a pattern on the backdrop behind the barrier in relation to the two holes... when we're observing them! If we don't watch them, the photons act as waves and form an interference pattern on the backdrop. The act of observing the photons seems to determine how they behave, but it gets even more bizarre. If we try to measure without observing, the photons seem to go back in time and change.
In basic physics, if we throw a baseball against a brick wall, it bounces off the wall because it doesn't have enough energy to penetrate the wall. BUT... in the quantum subatomic universe, a particle can pass through a barrier even without the apparent energy to do so. It's as if the particle "borrows" energy from the future to appear on the other side. Spooky action indeed!
Finally, there is this thing called "dark matter" which interestingly makes up the vast majority of our universe. We can't see it or explain it, we just know it is there because it seemingly has gravitational properties. This dark matter is what is believed to hold our physical universe together, but again... we don't know. Is it a particle we've yet to discover? Is it something in another dimension we can't comprehend?
You're starting to understand evolution. Keep it up!so the obese couch potato who sells his vote for an Obamaphone would be Homo Sapien 3.0?........Homo Sapien 2.0so you believe we are turning into something other than the species homo sapien?.....That's a species evolving... It's a lot of tiny steps that over a long period of time add up. Now you know.dude....what do you have in a hundred years.....two, three generations?....that alone should be enough to clue you in that it isn't evolution that is involved.....its penicillin, child labor laws and improved diet.........
