davidylan:

I already do and you know that . . . that is why i refer you to Science papers instead of youtube like you do. Where you arguing from facts and data earlier when you LIED IN BOLD that crustaceans didnt exist 400 million yrs ago?

much of the expert links has come from me . . . of course unless you consider youtube "learned sources".

How can you tell if I lied? You do not think that you can say that. To lie is to be dishonestly conveying wrong information. This is what I said:

davidylan:

Sorry to say but the above is daft reasoning. So because scientists are "researching evolution" means it must be true?
There are theologians also debating Genesis 1, do you also believe creationism is now true?

Fossils are the biggest problem TTE has today, because rather than show a gradual evolving of organisms, we have a sudden explosion of highly complex and diverse organisms. What was a baboon like before it evolved into what it is today? Why does a fern look exactly the same over 100 million yrs after?

Sorry, the shrimp of 400 million yrs ago is the same as that of today . . . even scientists are not bothering to contest that AT ALL so pls spare us the hare-brained nonsense you're spewing.

And what exactly is going on in those labs that prove evolution? perhaps you have your secret labs.

This is just a plain travesty of reasoning. Where does he get this figure from? The Shrimp has NOT NOT NOT been around for 400 million years. You cannot base you argument on so fallacious a claim and think you can get away with it. This is simply dishonest and wrong.


When I saw you comments, I did not know how long shrimps/crustaceans have been around, nor did I go to check. What caught my attention was the 400 or 525 million years and I knew by feigning ignorance and skepticism, I could get you to reveal your hand about the issue of the young or old earth and whether you have credibility of the scientific processes. Which turned out to be 100% success on my part - I got you to admit acceptance of OLD EARTH and acceptable of the scientific process. It was all a bluff on my part for a GREAT result, I would say.

I am prepared to accept the facts from the article you cite about the age of crustaceans, but before that I had absolutely no clue. But if you had asked me, it would taken me no more than about 10 minutes to retrieve it from one of my textbooks or other sources.


On the issue of using sources - Yes I do use some YOUTUBE sources and they are now many professional experts who are using YT to reach a greater audience. Supposing the authors of your cited articles had presented their work in a video on YT, would you not have used it? If not, why not?

huxley:

When I saw you comments, I did not know how long shrimps/crustaceans have been around, nor did I go to check. What caught my attention was the 400 or 525 million years and I knew by feigning ignorance and skepticism, I could get you to reveal your hand about the issue of the young or old earth and whether you have credibility of the scientific processes. Which turned out to be 100% success on my part - I got you to admit acceptance of OLD EARTH and acceptable of the scientific process. It was all a bluff on my part for a GREAT result, I would say.

I am prepared to accept the facts from the article you cite about the age of crustaceans, but before that I had absolutely no clue. But if you had asked me, it would taken me no more than about 10 minutes to retrieve it from one of my textbooks or other sources.

awww what a dishonest little creep. I'll just ignore you until you "feign ignorance" again.

we dont discuss evolution because it is simply rubbish.

Great contribution

One question though - why bring the bible into a scientific debate. Maybe i should counter with the koran. how logical

davidylan:

1 "Possibly some type of class (or even classes) of protobiont preceded prokaryotes. As for the second question you may need to be clearer to prevent misunderstanding. I'll answer it as best as I interpret it. If you mean to ask where the chemicals that could have played a part in the origin of life originate, then it's likely  that some were formed with the formation of the earth, while others may have been  caused or brought by extraterrestrial bodies (by extraterrestrial, I don't mean space monsters, I mean things like rocks  that become meteorites, etc)."

In other words - you dont know, you're not sure, you're merely speculating what may have been WITHOUT VALID PROOF.
Where did the rocks that became meteors come from? thin air? Why was earth chosen of over 9 planets? How did these extraterrestrial bodies form? How was the earth formed? What brough oxygen here?

No, in other words I'm not dogmatic about it. And yes, I'm not sure. There's nothing wrong with pointing towards what the evidence indicates but avoiding dogmatically stating it - that's how science works. Further, to reiterate a point I keep having to make, science doesn't do proof. Proof is for alcohol.

On extraterrestial rocks, the sources for thos vary, from parts of other planetary bodies dislodged by impacts, to smaller pieces of space bodies crashing into each other and eventually getting caught in the Earth's orbit.

What do you mean by "why was the earth chosen"? Every planet in our solar systme (and even beyond our solar system) are impacted by meteorites. The earth hasn't been the only one. Extraterrestrial bodies form in different ways, depending on the one in question. I've already given a couple of examples for stray rocky objects.

The Earth was formed probably through accretion. We already discussed oxygen in an earlier thread and there's little need to go over it again.

And you dare accuse us of basing our beliefs on mere faith?  Shocked

No, you base your beliefs on ignorance. Faith has nothing to do with much of what you do, I'm afraid.

2"There are many examples of fossilised remains of intermediate life forms, or transitional animals. However, the relative rarity in fossilisation means that obviously not every type of changes between species will be represented in the fossil record. Having said that, there are enough fossils to get a good idea of several changes that have happened between species, genuses, etc.

Can you show us JUST ONE of such "many examples" pls? We are getting tired of verbose claims that have no basis in reality.
Why are transitionals RARE but more complex life forms of even unicellular organisms are common place in the fossil record?

Um, if you had bothered to carry on reading, you'd have seen the example I gave. No, it's not just transitionals that are rare, fossils in general are relatively rare.

As far as examples go, one of the ones I'm fond of giving is that there are several dinosaur-bird transitionals, with archeopteryx being perhaps the best known."

You've been bleating about this for the last 4 threads . . . are there NO SIMPLE EXAMPLES?
Where are the horse transitionals? where are the goat, human, ape, fish, kangaroo transitionals?

What the hell are you on about? The last four threads? Other than this thread I don't remember mentioning transitionals in almost a year. In fact, why don't you show me where I mentioned dinosaur-birds transitionals or archeopteryx in the last four threads. I won't hold my breath.

In any case, this would be you trying to use duplicity to avoid the example for a transitional for which you've been asking, would it? Other than probably a couple of the transitionals between humans and previous ancestors, this is as simple an example as you'll get, because much has been published and found about the dinosaurs-birds transition.

So, there you go.

[Quote]

However, I can go further on the first question. First, one should realise that it s likely that it wasn't just life that was necessary for evolution, but lifeforms, as evolution occurs in populations. Now, as to the origins of the first lifeforms, there exist only different hypotheses that propose, in some cases, tangible ways life may have arisen. The RNA world hypthesis is probably the most well known.

In other words - you dont know, you're not sure, you're merely grasping at straws . . . and you accuse us of basing our entire beliefs on faith alone?[/quote]

Deja vu. Someone played with the matrix? Not your best attempt at handwaving, though.

[Quote]

Lol. I'll just wait for you to insult yourself.

to be expected when you run into the brickwall of your own denial.[/quote]

Lol. So, I'm guessing your Morton's demon has helped you repress ERVs, too, eh? Mazel tov.

more hogwash from the our dear KAG. If anyone can find any grain of serious science there pls let me know.

i couldnt find money making ideas in all this . pls i am a sales man and need to make some sales. if you wouldnt mind see my signature.i just hope no one bashes me with all the big grammar here, cos i aint got the liver to talk back. i left my biology and english text books in liberia during the war