So if we come from the sea, why didn't we stay there?

reply to post by OpenEars123


Good Post/Question. First, I have to admit I got lazy and didn't read all pages here before replying so I don't know if anyone stated this yet but, I believe why we don't live there anymore is that we decided it was pretty nasty in the water swimming around in our own bodily fluids and solid waste. Lol! Later, Syx.

Krazysh0t

UxoriousMagnus

Krazysh0t
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

First off, WE don't say anything. Science and scientists say things, we just study their experiments and papers and reach similar conclusions as them.

Who said that C-14 dating isn't effective?

Why Carbon Dating Works

The truth is, C-14 decomposition is highly consistent, with a margin error of plus or minus 40 years. That, in scientific parlance, is a very good tolerance.

The real problems of C-14 and its so-called erroneous readings, however, have more to do with the natural elements than the consistency of its decay.

As for your Mount Saint Helens nonsense, that is creationist propaganda. To refute that BS, I give you this:

Comments on David Plaisted's "The Radiometric Dating Game" - Part 1

Here's the abstract of this paper:

Dr. David Plaisted has written a "critique" of radiometric dating, which appears on the The True.Origin Archive. He claims on p. 2 (the page numbers for Dr. Plaisted's report are based on placing a copy into Microsoft Word® with a Times New Roman Font 12 single spacing format) that his report discusses a number of issues that question the validity of radiometric dating. He further claims that the issues in his report have not been adequately discussed in other creationist documents. A review of his report, however, shows that little, if any, of his material is original. He has simply recycled erroneous claims from Slusher (1981) and other creationist sources. In some cases, statements from Dr. Plaisted and his sources are word for word identical to statements in Slusher (1981), but Slusher (1981) is not properly quoted or referenced. Overall, the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report were refuted long ago by Dalrymple (1984), Brush (1983), Young (1982), and others. My report briefly discusses and addresses some of the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report, but for details consult my references.

It would help, if when building your case, you don't post creationist lies and propaganda and actually post real information (not to mention sources).

edit on 15-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

***********************************************************************************************************************
I know...I know....all creationists are uneducated liars......so just read this in a study of.....well.....knowing your enemy

www.answersingenesis.org...

and yes....it is a lying, idiot creationist site.....but fun to poke around in to see what the enemy believes.

So you want me to read an article from a bunch of Creationists who lie about science so I can get their worldview? Look, this isn't at matter of opinion, it is a matter of scientific fact. The Creationists are LYING about the radiometric dating techniques they used at Mount Saint Helens to disprove things and YOU are buying into it. There also is no such thing as Creation Science, because all Creationist Scientists use techniques like the one above to try to discredit evolutionary theory. It is sad, dishonest, and unfortunately hooks gullible people and people with confirmation biases (mostly the same thing in this regard). A simple Google search can produce mountains of evidence to debunk claims like the one you make.

By the way, speaking of Google searches. When you search for this topic about rocks dated much older than they should be at Mount Saint Helens, all you get is Creationist sites. Don't you think it is odd that not a SINGLE credible scientist is pushing this tripe? Look we can all produce evidence on the internet, but it comes down to credibility and Creation Scientists have none.

Links:
ATS thread on the topic: Dishonest Creationist Tactics= Bad Religion
ADVICE: The Debate of Young Earth Creationists
Are Some Creationists Being Willfully Dishonest?
An Account of a Debate with a Creationist
Creationist Tactics

It's sad that there are literally TONS of topics that you can find discussing the dishonest Creationist tactics that are used to try to debunk evolution. Yet YOU give them the same credibility as real scientists.

*******************************************************************************
Roger that.....I understand that you think scientists that also happen to be Christians have no credibility. I know you trust ALL scientists and ALL "science" because they are infallible .... unless of course they also happen to believe in God. I am just saying that I don't agree with you.....which is what we do here at ATS. Thanks for chatting and have a good day man.

UxoriousMagnus

DISRAELI
reply to post by OpenEars123

 

In evolutionary theory, life did indeed begin in the sea.
The first animals were sea animals.
So our ulitmate ancestors were animals which made the shift from sea to land.
Why did they make that shift?
I think it was because there was too much competition in the sea, so they were in danger of starving unless they tried somewhere else.
Like nineteenth century Europeans deciding to try their luck in America,

edit on 14-1-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

uhhh.....what? They didn't leave Europe because of over-crowding. Not sure where you are going there. And how do you starve in a grocery store full of your favorite things to eat. Fish eat fish.........to many fish just means more fish to eat.

Not if you're at the bottom of the food chain!

bitsforbytes
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

Land predators eat fish...............So you are evading one in your element and giving yourself to another on his turf .......

edit on 14-1-2014 by bitsforbytes because: (no reason given)

Anyone else see the problem with this statement?

I am fairly certain I have a rather decent understanding of how evolution works and how one species evolve over time into new "forms" through mutation and natural selection. So here's how I have come to understand why organisms left the water in the first place, but of course, I could be entirely wrong.

First of all, for a very long time there were no organisms living on land because there was no reason to exist there. The plants that we see all around us today didn't appear for quite a while, but they are the key to answering this question nonetheless.

An organism evolves into new forms through mutation, which can either be a positive or negative one, depending on whether or not there is an advantage at any given time or place that the organism with the mutation can utilize for its survival.
Now, a mutation can either be that the organism now stands a better chance of hiding from predators, escaping, attacking and so forth but a mutation can also be advantageous in different ecological niches.

For example, imagine Earth just before the time that the first organisms started to make their way onto land. Most likely, there were several different species that were capable of spending a limited time on land before they either suffocated or died of dehydration.
At that point, there were no real reason for any organism to be on the shores except when escaping from predators or possibly, and this could also be a key factor, when eating other dead animals that had washed up.
If a mutation gives an organism the ability to spend just a few more moments on land before having to go back into the water, then that is a positive mutation, granted that the mutation is passed on through reproduction, which eventually leads to a species that is able to spend a considerable time on land.

Moving on, when plants finally made their way onto land; a new habitat, (or ecological niche) opened up and so there was an opportunity for species to evolve into land-living organisms as they now could begin to hide in the shade of the leafs of plants and also in the puddles beneath the leafs that didn't evaporate. And, lest we forget, that there now was plants on land, and plants are food for many animals, which means that there was an entire new area of food just waiting to be feasted upon by whichever organism that had the mutation that allowed it to spend enough time on land to exploit this new ecological niche.
And now, it is quite easy to imagine that whatever species that was lucky enough to be one of the first ones to utilize this new habitat and food source, also had a greater chance of surviving, eventually leading to a growing population of land-dwelling organism that sooner or later would be the parents of the first true land-living organisms that never ever had to return to the water again and so the story of the journey from the shallows to and onto the promised land begins.

Again, I may very well be wrong on several points here but I am fairly certain that this is how it happened, and keep in mind that this most definitely is the short version of the story.

UxoriousMagnus

Krazysh0t

UxoriousMagnus

Krazysh0t
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

First off, WE don't say anything. Science and scientists say things, we just study their experiments and papers and reach similar conclusions as them.

Who said that C-14 dating isn't effective?

Why Carbon Dating Works

The truth is, C-14 decomposition is highly consistent, with a margin error of plus or minus 40 years. That, in scientific parlance, is a very good tolerance.

The real problems of C-14 and its so-called erroneous readings, however, have more to do with the natural elements than the consistency of its decay.

As for your Mount Saint Helens nonsense, that is creationist propaganda. To refute that BS, I give you this:

Comments on David Plaisted's "The Radiometric Dating Game" - Part 1

Here's the abstract of this paper:

Dr. David Plaisted has written a "critique" of radiometric dating, which appears on the The True.Origin Archive. He claims on p. 2 (the page numbers for Dr. Plaisted's report are based on placing a copy into Microsoft Word® with a Times New Roman Font 12 single spacing format) that his report discusses a number of issues that question the validity of radiometric dating. He further claims that the issues in his report have not been adequately discussed in other creationist documents. A review of his report, however, shows that little, if any, of his material is original. He has simply recycled erroneous claims from Slusher (1981) and other creationist sources. In some cases, statements from Dr. Plaisted and his sources are word for word identical to statements in Slusher (1981), but Slusher (1981) is not properly quoted or referenced. Overall, the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report were refuted long ago by Dalrymple (1984), Brush (1983), Young (1982), and others. My report briefly discusses and addresses some of the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report, but for details consult my references.

It would help, if when building your case, you don't post creationist lies and propaganda and actually post real information (not to mention sources).

edit on 15-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

***********************************************************************************************************************
I know...I know....all creationists are uneducated liars......so just read this in a study of.....well.....knowing your enemy

www.answersingenesis.org...

and yes....it is a lying, idiot creationist site.....but fun to poke around in to see what the enemy believes.

So you want me to read an article from a bunch of Creationists who lie about science so I can get their worldview? Look, this isn't at matter of opinion, it is a matter of scientific fact. The Creationists are LYING about the radiometric dating techniques they used at Mount Saint Helens to disprove things and YOU are buying into it. There also is no such thing as Creation Science, because all Creationist Scientists use techniques like the one above to try to discredit evolutionary theory. It is sad, dishonest, and unfortunately hooks gullible people and people with confirmation biases (mostly the same thing in this regard). A simple Google search can produce mountains of evidence to debunk claims like the one you make.

By the way, speaking of Google searches. When you search for this topic about rocks dated much older than they should be at Mount Saint Helens, all you get is Creationist sites. Don't you think it is odd that not a SINGLE credible scientist is pushing this tripe? Look we can all produce evidence on the internet, but it comes down to credibility and Creation Scientists have none.

Links:
ATS thread on the topic: Dishonest Creationist Tactics= Bad Religion
ADVICE: The Debate of Young Earth Creationists
Are Some Creationists Being Willfully Dishonest?
An Account of a Debate with a Creationist
Creationist Tactics

It's sad that there are literally TONS of topics that you can find discussing the dishonest Creationist tactics that are used to try to debunk evolution. Yet YOU give them the same credibility as real scientists.

*******************************************************************************
Roger that.....I understand that you think scientists that also happen to be Christians have no credibility. I know you trust ALL scientists and ALL "science" because they are infallible .... unless of course they also happen to believe in God. I am just saying that I don't agree with you.....which is what we do here at ATS. Thanks for chatting and have a good day man.

No, I'm not saying that at all. Apparently you aren't reading what I am typing correctly. I am SAYING that Creationist Scientists are dishonest. In fact you are USING a dishonest Creationist tactic by twisting my words around to mean something that I never typed then assuming things about my belief structure. I have no problems with a scientist who happens to be Christian or even religious for that matter. Just because they are Christian doesn't make them a Creationist Scientist. For instance, nothing in the theory of Evolution discounts the existence of a god. A god could easily use things like evolution as a tool to develop life throughout the universe. But saying Evolution is wrong, the universe was created in 6 days and all of life was put onto the planet fully developed is wrong. It's not even an opinion, it's just wrong. There is literally zero evidence of any of that being true.

Krazysh0t

UxoriousMagnus

Krazysh0t

UxoriousMagnus

Krazysh0t
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

First off, WE don't say anything. Science and scientists say things, we just study their experiments and papers and reach similar conclusions as them.

Who said that C-14 dating isn't effective?

Why Carbon Dating Works

The truth is, C-14 decomposition is highly consistent, with a margin error of plus or minus 40 years. That, in scientific parlance, is a very good tolerance.

The real problems of C-14 and its so-called erroneous readings, however, have more to do with the natural elements than the consistency of its decay.

As for your Mount Saint Helens nonsense, that is creationist propaganda. To refute that BS, I give you this:

Comments on David Plaisted's "The Radiometric Dating Game" - Part 1

Here's the abstract of this paper:

Dr. David Plaisted has written a "critique" of radiometric dating, which appears on the The True.Origin Archive. He claims on p. 2 (the page numbers for Dr. Plaisted's report are based on placing a copy into Microsoft Word® with a Times New Roman Font 12 single spacing format) that his report discusses a number of issues that question the validity of radiometric dating. He further claims that the issues in his report have not been adequately discussed in other creationist documents. A review of his report, however, shows that little, if any, of his material is original. He has simply recycled erroneous claims from Slusher (1981) and other creationist sources. In some cases, statements from Dr. Plaisted and his sources are word for word identical to statements in Slusher (1981), but Slusher (1981) is not properly quoted or referenced. Overall, the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report were refuted long ago by Dalrymple (1984), Brush (1983), Young (1982), and others. My report briefly discusses and addresses some of the worn-out claims in Plaisted's report, but for details consult my references.

It would help, if when building your case, you don't post creationist lies and propaganda and actually post real information (not to mention sources).

edit on 15-1-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

***********************************************************************************************************************
I know...I know....all creationists are uneducated liars......so just read this in a study of.....well.....knowing your enemy

www.answersingenesis.org...

and yes....it is a lying, idiot creationist site.....but fun to poke around in to see what the enemy believes.

So you want me to read an article from a bunch of Creationists who lie about science so I can get their worldview? Look, this isn't at matter of opinion, it is a matter of scientific fact. The Creationists are LYING about the radiometric dating techniques they used at Mount Saint Helens to disprove things and YOU are buying into it. There also is no such thing as Creation Science, because all Creationist Scientists use techniques like the one above to try to discredit evolutionary theory. It is sad, dishonest, and unfortunately hooks gullible people and people with confirmation biases (mostly the same thing in this regard). A simple Google search can produce mountains of evidence to debunk claims like the one you make.

By the way, speaking of Google searches. When you search for this topic about rocks dated much older than they should be at Mount Saint Helens, all you get is Creationist sites. Don't you think it is odd that not a SINGLE credible scientist is pushing this tripe? Look we can all produce evidence on the internet, but it comes down to credibility and Creation Scientists have none.

Links:
ATS thread on the topic: Dishonest Creationist Tactics= Bad Religion
ADVICE: The Debate of Young Earth Creationists
Are Some Creationists Being Willfully Dishonest?
An Account of a Debate with a Creationist
Creationist Tactics

It's sad that there are literally TONS of topics that you can find discussing the dishonest Creationist tactics that are used to try to debunk evolution. Yet YOU give them the same credibility as real scientists.

*******************************************************************************
Roger that.....I understand that you think scientists that also happen to be Christians have no credibility. I know you trust ALL scientists and ALL "science" because they are infallible .... unless of course they also happen to believe in God. I am just saying that I don't agree with you.....which is what we do here at ATS. Thanks for chatting and have a good day man.

No, I'm not saying that at all. Apparently you aren't reading what I am typing correctly. I am SAYING that Creationist Scientists are dishonest. In fact you are USING a dishonest Creationist tactic by twisting my words around to mean something that I never typed then assuming things about my belief structure. I have no problems with a scientist who happens to be Christian or even religious for that matter. Just because they are Christian doesn't make them a Creationist Scientist. For instance, nothing in the theory of Evolution discounts the existence of a god. A god could easily use things like evolution as a tool to develop life throughout the universe. But saying Evolution is wrong, the universe was created in 6 days and all of life was put onto the planet fully developed is wrong. It's not even an opinion, it's just wrong. There is literally zero evidence of any of that being true.

got ya! I disagree with the new thing you brought in about there being zero evidence....but I got ya....I get it....calm down

idmonster

bitsforbytes
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

Land predators eat fish...............So you are evading one in your element and giving yourself to another on his turf .......

edit on 14-1-2014 by bitsforbytes because: (no reason given)

Anyone else see the problem with this statement?

What ? You've never heard of a grizzly bear eating a Salmon.Hundreds of other examples available. Nope only you have the problem.

Agree2Disagree
veteranhumanbeing
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

VHB I have to ask; is this an accidental mutation that fit the environment or deliberate (a vague dim consciousness executed by the cellular; an act to thwart a possible potencial extinction or destruction of its host body). Do you tell your body "someone is actually in charge here", I am in control you are not lost at sea with no oars.

Agree2disagree Genetic mutations are never deliberate. I don't understand what you're getting at.

Thankyou for your thoughtful reply A2D.
What is causing them; the environment? If so how would a cell decide for itself to mutate as its living in a microcosm not even knowing the body/brain thats in charge (its just doing its thing, not even dim awareness here of its actual function in the body host or what it describes, liver cell? heart cell? If they are not deliberate and become out of control cancer cells that will randomly kill its host body; what is that called, insanity or revolt of one cell in trillions?

Agree2disagree Early life forms didn't contemplate potential extinction the way that we do...We're an intellectual species that is much more capable of understanding, rationalizing, and contemplating specific scenarios than many other organisms....In one respect, that's what makes humans so "unique" as compared to other organisms.

In just 3 million years we just happened to become intellectual giants; rulers of this land? Do you tell your body to behave itself on a regular basis "Hey Im here the brain trust as in charge, dont go off partying and mutate out of control to the detriment of the whole' as you cant be charged with murder or pay the burial costs.

AgreetodisagreeLike I said, the early life forms didn't contemplate potential extinction, so a "deliberate mutation" is out of the question...
When I said the organisms mutated...I didn't mean that there were only beneficial mutations.In fact, I'd go ahead and say that significantly more organisms died as a result of those mutations.A2D

I take it as a Darwinist you believe all of the life forms on this planet just appeared and managed to get along or create such sophisticated eco/biosystems that they just happened to survive in. More of these specie died out because they were essentially experiments by others that failed; this was and still is a laboratory. The human is next on this ecological chopping block.

Agree2disagreeedit to add: And to note, the genetic mutation did NOT fit the environment...but it was WORKABLE through adaptation.... The genetic mutation(s) did not make life impossible for early organisms, but it was not by any stretch of the imagination easy....but that is where adaptation steps in...Those early life forms adapted to their new genetic material and began to work with it to see what worked best for them(what helped them survive)...Or in this scenario, they moved to a more land-based lifestyle

How does flora and fauna communicate its intentions to each other to enable conscious decision making (of creating a detriment or success I get this its call PROFITABILITY). This plant disapears so this animal dies because it was its food source. I dont see this happening at all, its too unreasonable to think an entire system will accidently spring into being by sheer accidents of mutation. Im not understanding why two idealogical thought forms, created by the human: Evolution and Creationism (dislike these terms) cannot have worked together. We were messed with, and we also evolved. If you are the mind that the universe is just information putting itself together, organizing itself 1s and 0s for the profit/success of the system this would make better sense.

Same question can be asked about a baby in the mothers womb. While in the womb we do not breathe thru our lungs. Our lungs are completely filled with Amniotic fluid. Our mom is able to support our ability to "breathe" somehow. They say water births are less traumatic on babies...i don't know...just weird to me.

reply to post by OpenEars123


Because of chance. Everything in prehistory was running from something. Until now, and we mainly only run from each other.

Stuship
reply to post by OpenEars123

 

Because of chance. Everything in prehistory was running from something. Until now, and we mainly only run from each other.

Unfortunately humans (those sneaky malcontents) has only one other; their fellow humans as its major predator.

HawkeyeNation
Same question can be asked about a baby in the mothers womb. While in the womb we do not breathe thru our lungs. Our lungs are completely filled with Amniotic fluid. Our mom is able to support our ability to "breathe" somehow. They say water births are less traumatic on babies...i don't know...just weird to me.

I think this was talked about earlier; nasal plugs existing ineutero (we were mouth breathing the amniotic fluids) how does that work; science fiction at its best or scary worst..mammal human breathing like the mammal whale/dolphin?

reply to post by vethumanbeing


Gees guys, it really isn't all that mysterious.

The mother is breathing, oxygenating her blood as normal. Oxygenated blood is passed to the foetus and deoxygenated blood is taken from the foetus all through the umbilical chord.

It's not 'breathing' the amniotic fluid - it just mimics breathing in order to stimulate lung development. It doesn't need to breathe until the umbilical is actually cut.

No water babies needed..

reply to post by OpenEars123


If we came from the sea why don't we go back?
Would be my question.

Oh it just doesn't work like that okay Got it..

OpenEars123

Our world is 2/3's covered in water. Life as we know it adapts to the environment surrounding it. So why did we evolve and decide to habitat just 1/3 of our world? Why don't we live in or under water?

1 does not doubt that there is a human genetic connection in the Oceans. It would make sense to encourage genetics in intelligences that can survey the seas as well as the land and the Cosmos to add for what ever interest. If a mermaid is found and is genetically tested, 1 could imagine it has similar genetic components as the land beings/humans...

Ancient Sumer images?



NAMASTE*******

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by vethumanbeing

ReturnofThesonOfNothingGees guys, it really isn't all that mysterious.
The mother is breathing, oxygenating her blood as normal. Oxygenated blood is passed to the foetus and deoxygenated blood is taken from the foetus all through the umbilical chord.It's not 'breathing' the amniotic fluid - it just mimics breathing in order to stimulate lung development. It doesn't need to breathe until the umbilical is actually cut. No water babies needed..

You just have to be rational enough to spoil all of my potencial funsterism in the question; its still reeks of Sci-fi and to my mind very odd (why not have been incubated as in a hard shelled egg birth). Oh thats right we are not birds or lizards.

13th Zodiac

idmonster

bitsforbytes
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

Land predators eat fish...............So you are evading one in your element and giving yourself to another on his turf .......

edit on 14-1-2014 by bitsforbytes because: (no reason given)

Anyone else see the problem with this statement?

What ? You've never heard of a grizzly bear eating a Salmon.Hundreds of other examples available. Nope only you have the problem.

Hahahahahahaha,

The problem is, that as life slowly made its way onto land, there were no Grizzly,s. By definition, as life made its first experimental forays into the new environment there wasn't anything there to eat it.

randyvs
reply to post by OpenEars123

 

If we came from the sea why don't we go back?
Would be my question.

Oh it just doesn't work like that okay Got it..

Some species have gone back. Whales would be an example. A walking Whale' fossil discovered In Peru walking Whale' fossil discovered In Peru shows the transition back to water.

If you are referring to our species the answer is fairly simple. Humans have become very successful on land. We are the apex predator here. In the water there are several species that are far superior than us in that regard. It seems higher brain development in evolution required more oxygen which explains fish never really got smart. Sometimes I could swear that was false the way they steal the bait off my hook when fishing.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Gotta hand that one to ya.
That's a good retort.