Darwin's theory

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

The flood you speak of, there is no evidence for it my friend. None at all.

nothing except ... worldwide sedimentary rock layers laid down by it, geological features on a worldwide scale and enough water on Earth to drown the entire surface of the planet to an average depth of 2.6 Kilometres
http://books.google.ie/books?id=0cUKAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=if+the+earth+were+smooth+what+depth+of+water+would+cover+it&source=bl&ots=JzBhAmvwfU&sig=niv8xWH0zIreRMwc23Yq3c-0NXA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SVo4VOfoFqSV7AbtrIHoCw&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=if%20the%20earth%20were%20smooth%20what%20depth%20of%20water%20would%20cover%20it&f=false

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

You mean its not fact?????

As all big cats can still interbreed (with varying degrees of success) ... it's a very strong hypothesis.

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

nothing except ... worldwide sedimentary rock layers laid down by it, geological features on a worldwide scale and enough water on Earth to drown the entire surface of the planet to an average depth of 2.6 Kilometres
http://books.google.ie/books?id=0cUKAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=if+the+earth+were+smooth+what+depth+of+water+would+cover+it&source=bl&ots=JzBhAmvwfU&sig=niv8xWH0zIreRMwc23Yq3c-0NXA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SVo4VOfoFqSV7AbtrIHoCw&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=if%20the%20earth%20were%20smooth%20what%20depth%20of%20water%20would%20cover%20it&f=false

So because there is water on the planet, that is proof of a fairy tale flood? Doesnt flood water drain in a straight line as well? No evidence YET AGAIN for that.

As all big cats can still interbreed (with varying degrees of success) ... it's a very strong hypothesis.

Nothing that you have said at all is a strong hypothesis, you sounds like you are making this stuff up with cards of humanity!

J C

EoghanIRL wrote: »

So that's why dinosaur fossils are less than ten thousands years old.

Yes

... here is one with soft tissue still fresh!!
http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/05/8d/058dde79-05b8-4aa9-9a9c-f6d099e2cbdc/dinosaur-shocker-520-386.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpg

... and here the scientist who found the soft tissue in another fossil was fired

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

So because there is water on the planet, that is proof of a fairy tale flood? Doesnt flood water drain in a straight line as well? No evidence YET AGAIN for that.

No ... it provides the capacity for a worldwide flood ... the evidence is in the rocks.

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

Yes

... here is one with soft tissue still fresh!!
http://thumbs.media.smithsonianmag.com//filer/05/8d/058dde79-05b8-4aa9-9a9c-f6d099e2cbdc/dinosaur-shocker-520-386.jpg__800x600_q85_crop.jpg

... and here the scientist who found the soft tissue in another fossil was fired

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

From another article about the soft tissue discovery.

Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago)

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

No ... it provides the capacity for a worldwide flood ... the evidence is in the rocks.

The evidence in the rocks all point towards evolution, and nothing at all towards a flood, thats a blind-face lie I'm afraid.

obplayer

J C wrote: »

nothing except ... worldwide sedimentary rock layers laid down by it, geological features on a worldwide scale and enough water on Earth to drown the entire surface of the planet to an average depth of 2.6 Kilometres
http://books.google.ie/books?id=0cUKAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=if+the+earth+were+smooth+what+depth+of+water+would+cover+it&source=bl&ots=JzBhAmvwfU&sig=niv8xWH0zIreRMwc23Yq3c-0NXA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SVo4VOfoFqSV7AbtrIHoCw&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=if%20the%20earth%20were%20smooth%20what%20depth%20of%20water%20would%20cover%20it&f=false

I quote... 'If Earth's contours were levelled to a smooth ball, the ocean would cover it to a depth of 2,686 metres'.

So there was no flood, just a severe levelling of the Earth?

Doctor Jimbob

But what about the CFSI?







:pac:

Edgarfrndly

J C wrote: »

As all big cats can still interbreed (with varying degrees of success) ... it's a very strong hypothesis.

Some can, some can't. What they cannot do is produce fertile offspring. Speciation of that magnitude takes millions of years, not thousands.

AtomicHorror

You guys woke J C. You ****ing morons.

There'll be no end to this bull**** now.

Pherekydes

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

But what about the CFSI?

That's torn it now. :eek:

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

The evidence in the rocks all point towards evolution, and nothing at all towards a flood, thats a blind-face lie I'm afraid.

I think the clues lies in the word Sedimentary ...of the rock variety ... that cover 75% the earths surface.

Quote:-
"Sedimentary rocks are types of rock that are formed by the deposition of material at the Earth's surface and within bodies of water. Sedimentation is the collective name for processes that cause mineral and/or organic particles (detritus) to settle and accumulate or minerals to precipitate from a solution."

Doctor Jimbob

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You guys woke J C. You ****ing morons.

There'll be no end to this bull**** now.

Pherekydes wrote: »

That's torn it now. :eek:

At this stage, there's nothing to do but just sit back and enjoy the ride

J C

obplayer wrote: »

I quote... 'If Earth's contours were levelled to a smooth ball, the ocean would cover it to a depth of 2,686 metres'.

So there was no flood, just a severe levelling of the Earth?

... a dynamic part-levelling of the surface Earth was a key part of the Inundation phase of the Flood

Edgarfrndly

J C wrote: »

No ... it provides the capacity for a worldwide flood ... the evidence is in the rocks.

Evidence - What, you mean like finding human skeletons in Ordovician or Triassic rock layers? Oh wait, that's never happened. If there was a worldwide flood, we would not see an ordered layer of species defined by geologic period. Species of all families would be scattered across all geological periods. We would see dinosaurs in the Neogene, and Chimps in the Cambrian.

obplayer

J C wrote: »

... a dynamic part-levelling of the surface Earth was a key part of the Inundation phase of the Flood

As a 'scientist' you should know not to just make things up as you go along.

Doctor Jimbob

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Evidence - What, you mean like finding human skeletons in Ordovician or Triassic rock layers? Oh wait, that's never happened. If there was a worldwide flood, we would not see an ordered layer of species defined by geologic period. Species of all families would be scattered across all geological periods. We would see dinosaurs in the Neogene, and Chimps in the Cambrian.

Obviously the big ones like the dinosaurs sank to the bottom, that's why you find them in older rocks :rolleyes:

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

At this stage, there's nothing to do but just sit back and enjoy the ride

Fasten your seat belts.:)
... and watch out for the air bags ... or should that be wind bags??!!!

J C

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Evidence - What, you mean like finding human skeletons in Ordovician or Triassic rock layers? Oh wait, that's never happened. If there was a worldwide flood, we would not see an ordered layer of species defined by geologic period. Species of all families would be scattered across all geological periods. We would see dinosaurs in the Neogene, and Chimps in the Cambrian.

... and modern crocodiles in the Jurassic!!
These layers aren't indicative of time ... just the order of burial during the Flood.

Edgarfrndly

J C wrote: »

These layers aren't indicative of time ... just the order of burial during the Flood.

Oh, and how did they become so neatly ordered?

AtomicHorror

J C's entire world view relies on evolution being wrong. Like many other Christian fundamentalists, he has long recognised that when you give an inch to science, it just never ends. If one passage in the bible is metaphor, that means maybe they all are. If one passage has to be dismissed because of science, well then where does it end? He's actually smart in that he's spotted a problem that most Christians are happy to pretend doesn't exist, but I digress.

J C's belief system is so literal and so rigid that he knows well that if he accepts evolution, abiogenesis or cosmology, then everything he believes- the Word, God, Jesus, the Judgement, salvation, an afterlife- is basically horse****.

If the stakes were that big for you, would you ever accept evolution? There are 30,000 posts on the evolution thread(s) over in Christianity that answer that question. A giant no.

There's no rational argument that wins this debate in the mind of a Believer. Best to know that now.

J C

wrote:

Darwin once said.

Quote:
"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,"

I can see a few difficulties ... it would drown, for a start ... the structural changes required would take massive quantities of CFSI, with ever small step outside the Universal Probability Bound.

AKA a mathematical impossibility.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

I can see a few difficulties ... it would drown, for a start ... the structural changes required would take massive quantities of CFSI, with ever small step outside the Universal Probability Bound.

AKA a mathematical impossibility.

Ah, it's back.

J C

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Oh, and how did they become so neatly ordered?

They're not ... most are a complete jumble.

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ah, it's back.

Well spotted.

obplayer

AtomicHorror wrote: »

J C's entire world view relies on evolution being wrong. Like many other Christian fundamentalists, he has long recognised that when you give an inch to science, it just never ends. If one passage in the bible is metaphor, that means maybe they all are. If one passage has to be dismissed because of science, well then where does it end? He's actually smart in that he's spotted a problem that most Christians are happy to pretend doesn't exist, but I digress.

J C's belief system is so literal and so rigid that he knows well that if he accepts evolution, abiogenesis or cosmology, then everything he believes- the Word, God, Jesus, the Judgement, salvation, an afterlife- is basically horse****.

If the stakes were that big for you, would you ever accept evolution? There are 30,000 posts on the evolution thread(s) over in Christianity that answer that question. A giant no.

There's no rational argument that wins this debate in the mind of a Believer. Best to know that now.

I agree, I think the driving force behind people like J C's anti-science is simply a fear of death. 'I don't want to die therefore the bible must be right'.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

J C's entire world view relies on evolution being wrong. Like many other Christian fundamentalists, he has long recognised that when you give an inch to science, it just never ends. If one passage in the bible is metaphor, that means maybe they all are. If one passage has to be dismissed because of science, well then where does it end? He's actually smart in that he's spotted a problem that most Christians are happy to pretend doesn't exist, but I digress.

J C's belief system is so literal and so rigid that he knows well that if he accepts evolution, abiogenesis or cosmology, then everything he believes- the Word, God, Jesus, the Judgement, salvation, an afterlife- is basically horse****.

If the stakes were that big for you, would you ever accept evolution? There are 30,000 posts on the evolution thread(s) over in Christianity that answer that question. A giant no.

There's no rational argument that wins this debate in the mind of a Believer. Best to know that now.

No .. no ... no and no.:)

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

I think the clues lies in the word Sedimentary ...of the rock variety ... that cover 75% the earths surface.

Quote:-
"Sedimentary rocks are types of rock that are formed by the deposition of material at the Earth's surface and within bodies of water. Sedimentation is the collective name for processes that cause mineral and/or organic particles (detritus) to settle and accumulate or minerals to precipitate from a solution."

Floods cause single layer, largely disordered sedimentation with a gradient based on particle density, not multiple layers.

If I knew where you lived I would drive about after you all day screaming that sentence into a megaphone punctuated with an earsplitting klaxon. Just to demonstrate that you will never ****ing get it.

Edgarfrndly

J C wrote: »

They're not ... most are a complete jumble.

If that was the case, then human skeletons would be visible in Ordovician rock layers. Why are they not visible there?