Creationist - The necessary steps to evolution and what has been proven

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch
Comes a time when you just believe by faith, you are preaching with these statements, kaching

Why did dinosaurs have feathers, what were they planning, on growing jet engines or propellers at some stage, are you suggesting their end goal with feathers was flight, they had a plan, a design for flight

What the hell kind of argument is this? Where does it say that an animal with feathers has to eventually fly? Why doesn't the ostrich or the emu fly? Do you really listen to the stuff that you type? It is completely ridiculous.

I am not against evolution any more than I am against scientology, I am against religious science and stupid science

?

THAT'S a joke!

wELL PRAY TELL

WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF FEATHERS THEN.

tO LAY MORE EGGS

a reply to: borntowatch

Mutations don't have purposes. Things just happen and that mutation ends up getting used for something.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: borntowatch
Comes a time when you just believe by faith, you are preaching with these statements, kaching

Why did dinosaurs have feathers, what were they planning, on growing jet engines or propellers at some stage, are you suggesting their end goal with feathers was flight, they had a plan, a design for flight

What the hell kind of argument is this? Where does it say that an animal with feathers has to eventually fly? Why doesn't the ostrich or the emu fly? Do you really listen to the stuff that you type? It is completely ridiculous.

I am not against evolution any more than I am against scientology, I am against religious science and stupid science

?

THAT'S a joke!

wELL PRAY TELL

WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF FEATHERS THEN.

tO LAY MORE EGGS

I answered this question for you – to the best of our knowledge so far. Read back a few posts. In fact I answered a few of your questions. It looks like everyone is ignoring my post.

Ah, I've just checked. I messed up the quoting feature and it looks like I'm just quoting you. Your original questions I wanted to quote have not appeared, and my response looks like it's come from you, which is why everyone is probably ignoring it.

originally posted by: borntowatch
Maybe the problem is Barcs, some people are docile and accept what others tell them readily because they want to believe what the rest believe, others not so and want better evidence than a few vague links from those who know everything.

Maybe the problem is the docile teachers dont understand what they believe and cant relate it to others in a logical way.

I see evolution as a religion because the evidence is so vague.

So many questions on this thread have not been answered and you wont even consider even looking at them.

The questions have been asked and answered a thousand times in this section. It really gets old when folks STILL insist that abiogenesis is required for evolution, a notion that is 100% demonstrably false and any legitimate biologist will tell you the same thing. You in particular keep asking for evidence, then when it is posted you don't even read it and you claim it is wrong without a single explanation as to why. If you aren't willing to even consider the evidence, why would you ask for it? You know as well as I do it has been posted here ad nauseum. It would be different if you guys brought new stuff to the table or actually upgraded your understanding of evolution, but you still parrot the same ol tireless argument that abiogenesis must be proven or evolution is wrong or evolution is "just a theory". It's safe to say that evolution has won the "debate" by a wide margin.

originally posted by: 321Go
I answered this question for you – to the best of our knowledge so far. Read back a few posts. In fact I answered a few of your questions. It looks like everyone is ignoring my post.

Yep. This is what happens whenever somebody takes the time, out of the goodness of their heart, to break down the information and explain how evolution actually works in hopes they learn something. The post was flat out ignored. This is why folks have given up explaining anything to borntowatch. He demands evidence, but ignores it when posted and then claims nobody has posted it. It's been a constant cycle for the past few years here. I don't even think Born is a creationist. He is likely a troll masquerading as one. Similarly the OP came in, posted his misunderstanding of evolution and then left. Later he came back and pretended like nobody had even debunked his claims and just kept on going where he left off.

Ah, I've just checked. I messed up the quoting feature and it looks like I'm just quoting you. Your original questions I wanted to quote have not appeared, and my response looks like it's come from you, which is why everyone is probably ignoring it.

Nah, there was nothing accidental about that. Born ignores any post with scientific information. Nothing new. He is just as capable of reading your post as we are.

Thanks Barcs.

If the enthusiasm that creationists hold for their one book was diverted to real science it would do so much good for them, and possibly us too.

Creationists are often so passionate about their beliefs and they will go to any lengths to prove (loose term...) their ideas and the scripture they quote. Imagine if that were diverted to scientific research instead. Imagine what their persistence and devotion could uncover about the many unanswered questions we still have.

By all means, keep your religion, but science needs your passion and drive. The only thing you have to do is drop Genesis from all serious and rational thought.

a reply to: 321Go

Perhaps this is your first time debating borntowatch, he always does this where he ignores all responses to him and repeats himself over and over like a parrot. Just wait, eventually he'll tell us that no proof of evolution has ever been posted. There's a reason I haven't typed out really long responses to anything he's said yet.

Well after reading everything here it appears to me that the evolutionists had listed quantifiable facts, the creationists have mislead, lied (maybe not intentionally) and ignored the answers to the questions they posed. When pinned down they fell back to...well I have faith.

This one goes to the evolutionists.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: borntowatch
Maybe the problem is Barcs, some people are docile and accept what others tell them readily because they want to believe what the rest believe, others not so and want better evidence than a few vague links from those who know everything.

Maybe the problem is the docile teachers dont understand what they believe and cant relate it to others in a logical way.

I see evolution as a religion because the evidence is so vague.

So many questions on this thread have not been answered and you wont even consider even looking at them.

The questions have been asked and answered a thousand times in this section. It really gets old when folks STILL insist that abiogenesis is required for evolution, a notion that is 100% demonstrably false and any legitimate biologist will tell you the same thing. You in particular keep asking for evidence, then when it is posted you don't even read it and you claim it is wrong without a single explanation as to why. If you aren't willing to even consider the evidence, why would you ask for it? You know as well as I do it has been posted here ad nauseum. It would be different if you guys brought new stuff to the table or actually upgraded your understanding of evolution, but you still parrot the same ol tireless argument that abiogenesis must be proven or evolution is wrong or evolution is "just a theory". It's safe to say that evolution has won the "debate" by a wide margin.

Oops there you go again, putting on your crown staring in the mirror and thinking that your opinion is valid to everyone
Its not, sorry
Scientists have made mistakes before and will again, your faith in them is inexplicable.

Abiogenesis and evolution is linked and very relevant
Life is supposed to evolve, it starts from nothing into something.

It isnt just important to many, its imperative, as to others obviously, your opinion and biologists opinion is irrelevant in the context, you they dont choose for us.

Till the question is answered evolution theory is just pissing in the wind, people like me will stand and watch and laugh as you claim victory.

If it was such a grand victory, why are you here fighting tooth and nail claiming the win. You havnt won nothing, you just look silly.

You want to win then use science (do you believe in science, real science) to prove your position.

Claiming victory without science (do you believe in real science or just faith science), sounds like second place to me

Evidence, real scientific evidence, not faith science or assumption.


I dont think you actually understand what science is Barcs, in fact you cant grasp the concept of scientific evidence, real science, valid science.
Faith, religious science sure, but you dont understand real science

originally posted by: damwel
Well after reading everything here it appears to me that the evolutionists had listed quantifiable facts, the creationists have mislead, lied (maybe not intentionally) and ignored the answers to the questions they posed. When pinned down they fell back to...well I have faith.

This one goes to the evolutionists.

What facts won you over and can you explain why you think they are pertinent in the issue.

What evidence based on scientific data gave the evolutionist this famous victory

I truly dont understand and maybe you could explain in detail what is valid to you.

I actually think you are like Barcs and dont understand science.

So a bit of an explanation might help.

Whats your take on abiogenesis?

I bet there will be no reply to these questions

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: 321Go

Perhaps this is your first time debating borntowatch, he always does this where he ignores all responses to him and repeats himself over and over like a parrot. Just wait, eventually he'll tell us that no proof of evolution has ever been posted. There's a reason I haven't typed out really long responses to anything he's said yet.

Krazyshot, you kidder
Saying silly things about me and what I have said, telling people storys. Of course I believe in evolution,
I believe all humanity came from Adam and Eve,
I believe that there was a pair of common ancestor for each Kind.

Funny word Kind in relation to biology, it seems as vague as the word species

Anyway, its not true you saying I dont believe in evolution, its just the religiosy science (I dont think you understand real science either, you need to study some more about what real science is) part of evolution i dont believe in

I am just asking for reasoned valid evidence, not links to vague assumption based religiosy sites where scientists work on best guess effort.

To believe in evolution I need
Repeatable
Observable
Testable
(those experiments are real science, you need to understand that before you can preach your faith at me)
EVIDENCE


so now you can release your anger, frustration and hate

Go ahead

originally posted by: 321Go
Thanks Barcs.

If the enthusiasm that creationists hold for their one book was diverted to real science it would do so much good for them, and possibly us too.

Creationists are often so passionate about their beliefs and they will go to any lengths to prove (loose term...) their ideas and the scripture they quote. Imagine if that were diverted to scientific research instead. Imagine what their persistence and devotion could uncover about the many unanswered questions we still have.

By all means, keep your religion, but science needs your passion and drive. The only thing you have to do is drop Genesis from all serious and rational thought.

What a strange comment.

Maybe if you had a basic understanding of science.

Maybe if Barcs and Krazyshot had a basic understanding you and they could be answering our questions with evidence, even be out there finding it.

We are the ones pushing you religious faith in science by questioning it, holding it up to scrutiny
Everything you say about creationists and genesis is what we say about your religion and evolution

Imagine the advances that could be found if you evolutionists stopped preaching and started learning what real science is, maybe you could help yourselves.

Go find the fossil record, I think its near the old radiogram

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

Mutations don't have purposes. Things just happen and that mutation ends up getting used for something.

Thats awesome, so precious, so childlike.

Feathers just mutated from nothing, for no apparent reason into feathers, wow that was lucky.

I just cant think of a reply, cant think of anything that could explain or make me understand how anyone could believe that.

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

Mutations don't have purposes. Things just happen and that mutation ends up getting used for something.

Thats awesome, so precious, so childlike.

Feathers just mutated from nothing, for no apparent reason into feathers, wow that was lucky.

I just cant think of a reply, cant think of anything that could explain or make me understand how anyone could believe that.

Hello BtW
Feathers didn't evolve or mutate from nothing, they first appeared as quills – first very short, then longer over time. These could have been useful for many applications, like defence or mating display. It took another 60 million years for them to fully evolve as 'feathers', and very simple feathers at that. It's taken another 130 million years to get to feathers as we know them today in all their diversity and complexity. Hope that helps your conundrum.

I just found this:
people.eku.edu...
which should help explain their development.

I should point out that in the last couple years some supplementary fossil finds have helped illustrate the development of feathers, so you should consider this source as not totally up-to-date. China is now discovering some truly remarkable fossils on the origin of birds and the transition between dinosaurs to birds. In all of paleontology this is probably the most exiting of any field since the discovery of the Tyrannosaurs and Raptors.

originally posted by: 321Go

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

Mutations don't have purposes. Things just happen and that mutation ends up getting used for something.

Thats awesome, so precious, so childlike.

Feathers just mutated from nothing, for no apparent reason into feathers, wow that was lucky.

I just cant think of a reply, cant think of anything that could explain or make me understand how anyone could believe that.

Hello BtW
Feathers didn't evolve or mutate from nothing, they first appeared as quills – first very short, then longer over time. These could have been useful for many applications, like defence or mating display. It took another 60 million years for them to fully evolve as 'feathers', and very simple feathers at that. It's taken another 130 million years to get to feathers as we know them today in all their diversity and complexity. Hope that helps your conundrum.

So 190 million years, cool, for feathers to evolve.

Got any evidence that is based on science, that means no assumption.
Fossil record ?

I understand evolution, I could even accept it beyond a theory, think its valid and think its a reasonable belief.

I just dont see the evidence, saying 200 million years is not evidence, quills and time is not scientific evidence.Peacocks have feathers and so do condors, where are the fossil records of thm, of any otherlink to the past mutation carrying birds.

It just doesnt fit with me, I Just dont have your faith in scientists and the theory

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Exactly.. This borntowatch has been provided untold countless times with actual, factual, self evident, evidence, that they can research for themselves. Borntowatch has already admitted in writing that theirs is a position of faith, and has proved they believe (based in faith) things that cannot be backed by any actual, factual information.
It's a statement of faith, where they will not, or can not, or must not change their minds. They've proven that they will not even consider any evidence that may change their minds! This is indeed a most dishonest position to be in, and this is why bortowatch cannot discredit evolution in any honest way.

It does not matter what evidence, or anything you tell them, they will dismiss the evidence with the claim of no "proof" offered, and go on explaining everything by explaining nothing..godidit.
The best way to parody the creationist position is to let them speak for themselves, you really don't have to do much more than that, but I encourage anyone with objective evidence, to keep correcting their errors as a matter of public record and pure Comedy Gold!..

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: 321Go

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: borntowatch

Mutations don't have purposes. Things just happen and that mutation ends up getting used for something.

Thats awesome, so precious, so childlike.

Feathers just mutated from nothing, for no apparent reason into feathers, wow that was lucky.

I just cant think of a reply, cant think of anything that could explain or make me understand how anyone could believe that.

Hello BtW
Feathers didn't evolve or mutate from nothing, they first appeared as quills – first very short, then longer over time. These could have been useful for many applications, like defence or mating display. It took another 60 million years for them to fully evolve as 'feathers', and very simple feathers at that. It's taken another 130 million years to get to feathers as we know them today in all their diversity and complexity. Hope that helps your conundrum.

So 190 million years, cool, for feathers to evolve.

Got any evidence that is based on science, that means no assumption.
Fossil record ?

I understand evolution, I could even accept it beyond a theory, think its valid and think its a reasonable belief.

I just dont see the evidence, saying 200 million years is not evidence, quills and time is not scientific evidence.Peacocks have feathers and so do condors, where are the fossil records of thm, of any otherlink to the past mutation carrying birds.

It just doesnt fit with me, I Just dont have your faith in scientists and the theory

Yes, there is a fossil record of their development, and it's getting fuller as new finds are made. China is a great largely untapped resource for additions to the fossil record, mainly as they didn't value their worth prior to Western intervention. They viewed fossil finds as proof of their mythological dragons.

Have a look at the website I posted, there are plenty of pictures and not too much text to read.

So, BtW, through the discovery and examination of fossil evidence we can see the evolution of feathers – in that they didn't start out as such, they evolved into feathers. This is to say that dinosaurs didn't plan to fly, they evolved to make use of their feathers. Some dinosaurs still had 'flight' without feathers, but these should be more accurately described as gliders, rather than fliers.

I'll try to address the questions you raised previously one by one, if you're happy with that?

You asked about the development of lungs, but this is a very long story so I'll be brief. In summary, there were several attempts at producing organs that could extract oxygen from water, some more successful than others. The simplest, which is still used today, is a tube-like structure – very simple but very inefficient. The next major development was gills and these have been located in a few different positions inside and outside the organism. Our internal lungs were next and were used by the majority of the quadruped land-based animals, but at that time were due to the nature of the internal organ structure of the time, creatures who had this system could not walk or run and breath at the same time because the sideways curving spine used to move the limbs compressed one lung and elongated the other, rending them useless while in motion. This system is still in use by most lizards and many reptiles, including the crocodile, bearing in mind these are very ancient creatures. We also use this same lung design, but we are bipedal and don't rely on our spine to enable movement.

There have been many different intermediate types and even some creatures that have utilised two different types of lung system. The major breakthrough in lung design was by certain bipedal dinosaurs (our lineage is from quadrupeds, unfortunately). These lungs were incredibly efficient as air only flowed one way through the lung, instead of in/out. This enabled these dinosaurs to move very fast for extended periods and was ideal for the hunting carnivores that bore them. Birds share a more developed type of this lung.

The full story, which is a couple billion years long, also includes the dramatic environmental changes that were occurring on our planet at the time, and was possibly the most significant driving force behind lung evolution and design, but that is equally as detailed and long. I'm sure this information is available online somewhere and can fill in all the details I have sketched out here.

a reply to: borntowatch

Scientists have made mistakes before and will again, your faith in them is inexplicable.

see, this is where it gets really funny. they have the self respect to admit their error and thats a pretty good basis for trusting them. and you dont get that.

Till the question is answered evolution theory is just pissing in the wind, people like me will stand and watch and laugh as you claim victory