132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 03:57 am
Evolution, the topic here, is concerned with life forms which are organic. Water, ice, melting, freezing, etc etc are not life forms and relate to inorganic substances.

Why do people deny the topic of the thread?
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 04:44 am
@spendius,
Quote:

Why do people deny the topic of the thread?


So they won't get scared any time their sacred cow , the religion of evolution, is under attack Wink
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 06:07 am
@Quehoniaomath,
IF by "under attack" you include yourself, you are flattering yourself for having an opposable thumb (if you have an opposable thumb).

You've said NOTHING thus far and when I challenged your thinking you got silly and rude with me. SO , like most Creationists, youre a coward to really debate.

I can easily posst the truth after every one of your dumass posts until you slink off to get back under your favorite rock.
Corse, thatll leave spendi with no one to fellate

Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 06:31 am
Despite Dawkins and his chums claiming to have got evolution pretty well sussed out, they still haven't managed to convincingly talk us through how creatures evolved step by step.
For example a spider consists of holes in its abdomen, glands to produce web fluid, muscles to squirt it out the holes, knowledge about how to spin webs, special 'toes' for walking on webs etc.
Each of those components would have to appear simultaneously all at once, or the spider wouldn't work, but the 'simultaneous' thing is something scientists can't even begin to explain..Smile
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 06:45 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
no that's not the case. I don't know the story of spiders except for th fossil record of their history, but ALL times the evolution of a complex system (like echo location or flight) occurred step by step with an original function being totally different than a final function.

The ID boys hve tried to show that "Irreducible Complexity", when carried back to some beginning, demonstrates that a function just "ppears" out of nowhere (is , substitute God).
Every one of IDers irreducible complexity demonstrations hs been debunked by science. The most famous was Michael Behes "complex enzyme cascade that defined blood clotting in mammals)

The same cascade, except progressively simpler and simpler could be traced to lower animals until finally, in annelids, it was clearly shown that only one chemical enzyme was required to clot the "blood" of a worm.

Ardipithecus is another example of gradualism in achieving something. This fossil was somewhat like us except, besides being an upright walker, its feet were prehensile with a grasping big toe and it had a teeny ape-like skull.

Gradualism is still the example where we see the most fossil changes in phenotypes. Punctuated Equilibrium, though maybe more frequent a mechanism, doesn't leave well made traces in the sedimentary record because geology isn't necessarily being cooperative to make fossils. Its a forensic science, not a worldview

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 07:49 am
@giujohn,
Western Antarctica is more than just the Ross ice shelf. A lot more.

http://cdn0.cosmosmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/20090515_WestAntarcticIceSheet.jpg


Quote:
And Ice sheet is on land and doesnt float. And while if they melted the sea level would rise, lets put it in perspective. If ALL of the ice sheet in greenland melted it would only raise the seal level 20 feet.

20 feet in perspective? With a 6 foot rise in sea level over half of southern Florida will be under water. Who needs Miami, New Orleans, NYC when we look at it from your perspective.
parados
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 07:58 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
However there is the small matter of the ratio of the ocean surface area to the volume involved.


The average depth of the ocean is 1km. The average depth of the Antarctic ice sheet is over 2km. Using the surface covered by each would give the wrong increase in ocean volume if the ice melted.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 08:01 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Quehoniaomath wrote:


Lottery odds are completely different, because too simple,
It is a wrong analogy.
You can't compare a lottery with 'evolution'
But you would know that if you have done any reseach in the field of evolution ansd math/statistics.

Then why do your sources use lottery type odds to disprove evolution? It seems you agree with me that their math is wrong.

You need to be more careful Humpty, your wall is getting very narrow. But don't worry, I will continue to play Alice for you.
Setanta
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 08:13 am
London, south of Hampstead Heath, has a mean elevation of two meters. The gigantic and enormously expensive river gates which were constructed to deal with a North Sea storm surge can only hold back a rise in sea level of three meters. Ah, what the hell, a 20 foot rise is no big deal. (Insert rolly-eyed emoticon here.)

This started because O'George was saying that the economic cost of CO2 control would be too high. So i pointed out that the cost is going to be a hell of a lot greater if the West Antarctic ice sheet detaches. With London, New York, Tokyo and Los Angeles partially flooded, particularly including the financial districts, the economic cost will beggar the losses O'George and his cronies will experience if their energy sector invests are no longer so profitable.
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 08:23 am
@Setanta,
take the opposite argument. During the height of the Pleistocene Ice Ages, the sea levels were an additional 100 meters or so LOWER than today. ALL that was from continental ice sheets . Today we have but 3 major continental Ice sheets left (plus a few minor ones)
The final 100 feet or so of rise can be accomplished with the removal of these remaining continental sheets. Goodbye DOGGERLAND.
Fla is already submerged pretty much. Evidence is seen from all the karst and caves in inlnd Fla where these old caves re now filled almost to the brim with water. Carbon isotope data shows that most of this saline **** contains water from melted glaciers. (We have 'fingerprint' C13/14 and O16/18 waters from cores of both the Antarctic and Greenland Continental sheets)
According to the Hubbert dynamic solutions to the Ghyben Herzberg principle, "Fresh water lies atop intruding salt water to a tune of about 1 ft of fresh atop every 40 ft of salt intrusion. Most of deep ground water in Fla is SALTY, so water wells have to be drilled so as not to tap these deep saline aquifers.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 08:30 am
@parados,
Quote:
Then why do your sources use lottery type odds to disprove evolution? It seems you agree with me that their math is wrong.

You need to be more careful Humpty, your wall is getting very narrow. But don't worry, I will continue to play Alice for you


Woe! It really seems you don't understand the math involved.
Further more you talk about my 'source'.
That is just not the only one, so it also means you haven't read all of my postings.
There is more then enough math/stats to proves evolution extremely wrong.
Of course it is wrong, as I have stated the basis is flawed, so everything build on it is flawed. It that so difficult for you to comprehend?

LOL

I need to be more carefull??You play Alice? LOL

man o man, what to think of that nonsense?
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 08:31 am
@Setanta,
O'Georges real estate division is already buying "beachfront" options in places like Alexandria Va and Pottstown Pa which will be pretty much the ocean front for a few 100K years or so. bye bye NYC and Longiland Nobody'll miss New Jersey from Warren County east xcept Frankie. We don't need no steenking Philly and Chester Pa or Wilmington and Newark Del
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 08:37 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Of course I don't understand the math since you refuse to discuss it. I can only discuss it with myself. You can't say what is wrong with my math or what is right with theirs. You can only say, "it is what you say it is."

Of course it is Humpty. And we all know how you end up. If I ever leave we will all hear the crash.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 08:49 am
@parados,
Quote:
Of course I don't understand the math since you refuse to discuss it. I can only discuss it with myself. You can't say what is wrong with my math or what is right with theirs. You can only say, "it is what you say it is."

Of course it is Humpty. And we all know how you end up. If I ever leave we will all hear the crash.


mate, just do a search on evolution and statistics on google.
Hours of fun!
enjoy!




Are these people 'made' by evolution? I don't believe it!

spendius
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 08:58 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Corse, thatll leave spendi with no one to fellate


That's good news.

You're enjoying Q the most fm.
parados
 
  2  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 08:58 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Yes, and.........


Statistics don't change based on what you are calculating. The methods are the same which would mean calculating the odds of winning the lottery with random numbers are the same as calculating odds of evolution with random mutations.
farmerman
 
  1  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 09:20 am
@spendius,
not at all. I find him a complete ignoramus, but you apparently do.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 10:23 am
@parados,
Quote:
Statistics don't change based on what you are calculating. The methods are the same which would mean calculating the odds of winning the lottery with random numbers are the same as calculating odds of evolution with random mutations.


No, it really is not the same at all! There are some basic principles the same.yes.
but not all, Really, do a course in statistics. There is more to it then you imply here. You just proved to me once again you don't know statistics at all!
parados
 
  2  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 10:58 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Yawn.....

Thanks Humpty. I see you think statistics don't change except when they change.
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Mon 16 Jun, 2014 11:49 am
@parados,
Quote:
Thanks Humpty. I see you think statistics don't change except when they change.


Nope, I didn't say that ..at all!
You just again proving my point you don't know statistics!
Really start reading some books about statistics, you will see it is really about more than only the lottery. Wink
Have fun educating yourself, it is a rather interesting field!
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 07:26:45