Happy Atheist Forum

ugg.    

http://www.museumofearthhistory.com/

I don't know if I'm supposed to laugh or cry at this...

I despise people who mislead the public like this - I see it as one of the lowest forms of deception.

What the hell Texas!

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer...FIELDTRIP!

Btw, tx already has one of these things in glen rose...we like to collect them

Just terrible.

How the bloody hell do you Texans put up with this shite? Excuse the foul language, I see little point in articulating this any more complicated than that.

:upset:  :upset:  :upset:  :crazy:  :upset:  :upset:  :hissyfit:  :rant:

Quote from: "Whitney"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer...FIELDTRIP!

Btw, tx already has one of these things in glen rose...we like to collect them

Oh please! Do the field trip! Stand by the exhibits with copies of Origin of Species and just laugh out loud!!

My hope is that one day all those museums will be in a museum. So it might be fun for future generations to have pictures of us laughing at them. I'm all for a field trip.  

I'm going to try to figure out if that place really exists (no one I know has heard of it and the local group is usually aware of this sort of thing) then we'll arrange a field trip.

I've always thought that videotaping a tour of such a place would make for a grand opportunity to create a "documentary" style film teaching "how to spot fallacies, misinformation and propaganda".

Quote from: "JillSwift"I've always thought that videotaping a tour of such a place would make for a grand opportunity to create a "documentary" style film teaching "how to spot fallacies, misinformation and propaganda".

Oh, then you'll love this

Fellowship of Freethought visits the creation museum in glenn rose texas:
http://vimeo.com/10896933 (http://vimeo.com/10896933)
Actually, that's not the best video...I'll have to track down the videos of people talking inside the museum and of the park ranger being upset about people calling her an atheist....they are on facebook but I don't know if that link will work for everyone...you can try:

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1416252176659 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1416252176659)
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1416233616195 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1416233616195)

Can't find the one from inside right now....

Quote from: "Whitney"Oh, then you'll love this

Fellowship of Freethought visits the creation museum in glenn rose texas:
http://vimeo.com/10896933 (http://vimeo.com/10896933)
Actually, that's not the best video...I'll have to track down the videos of people talking inside the museum and of the park ranger being upset about people calling her an atheist....they are on facebook but I don't know if that link will work for everyone...you can try:

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1416252176659 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1416252176659)
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1416233616195 (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1416233616195)

Can't find the one from inside right now....

Heh. I did like the video on Vimeo. The looks of sad astonishment and barely stifled laughter on folks faces was precious =^_^=

Sadly, I'm not a Facebooker. And given the recent Facebook Evilness, not likely to join.  

Quote from: "JillSwift"Sadly, I'm not a Facebooker. And given the recent Facebook Evilness, not likely to join.  :raised:

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "JillSwift"Sadly, I'm not a Facebooker. And given the recent Facebook Evilness, not likely to join.  :raised:

The unauthorized sharing of personal information.

My hubby said something about how admission might be strictly limited - by appointment only.  I imagine that they wouldn't want anyone there with actual critical thinking skills spoiling it for the others.  If you were to go, it might have to be under false pretenses.

Quote from: "jrosebud"My hubby said something about how admission might be strictly limited - by appointment only.  I imagine that they wouldn't want anyone there with actual critical thinking skills spoiling it for the others.  If you were to go, it might have to be under false pretenses.

Hmm...odd.  

I haven't gotten around to looking into it yet but wouldn't want to go if I had to lie.

Quote from: "Whitney"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer...FIELDTRIP!

I agree!  This is totally worth the drive up from Austin someday.

It says it opens to the public in spring 2010.

I wish I could go too...  

Quote from: "Cecilie"I wish I could go too...  

Do you want me to tell them they should open their next one in Norway?

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Cecilie"I wish I could go too...  

Do you want me to tell them they should open their next one in Norway?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg34.imageshack.us%2Fimg34%2F2438%2Fheheoc.gif&hash=50cf1131f6316b9f48965cce1bfe1877dc8f90e7)

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Cecilie"I wish I could go too...  

Do you want me to tell them they should open their next one in Norway?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg34.imageshack.us%2Fimg34%2F2438%2Fheheoc.gif&hash=50cf1131f6316b9f48965cce1bfe1877dc8f90e7)

Heathen! How dare you use a none sanctfied color of smily. I say cast the apostate out. Yellow the very nerve.

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "Tank"(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg34.imageshack.us%2Fimg34%2F2438%2Fheheoc.gif&hash=50cf1131f6316b9f48965cce1bfe1877dc8f90e7)

Heathen! How dare you use a none sanctfied color of smily. I say cast the apostate out. Yellow the very nerve.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg43.imageshack.us%2Fimg43%2F4330%2Fgring.gif&hash=636178b2f4403fbb79bac6871d86223491c20eb4)

Anyone that want to go see the museum should attend the Texas Freethought Convention this year; we can hit up the museum afterward.  This would make the trip worth it for anyone that has to travel a ways.  I'll post more info after we know the museum is open to the public and what the schedule allows.

Quote from: "Whitney"Anyone that want to go see the museum should attend the Texas Freethought Convention this year; we can hit up the museum afterward.  This would make the trip worth it for anyone that has to travel a ways.  I'll post more info after we know the museum is open to the public and what the schedule allows.

Videos and Youtube please for those of us not able to attend  

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Cecilie"I wish I could go too...  

Do you want me to tell them they should open their next one in Norway?

I don't think they would waste money on that sort of thing.

I'll go. Someone PM me when.

Quote from: "Gawen"I'll go. Someone PM me when.

 Only if you promise not to pee on the exhibits!

Quote from: "Tank":P

Ok...ok....I promise not to pee on the exhibits. Remember though, that excludes all potted plants...*winkin*

-cries tears of joy- finally a museum for smart...wait...NOOOO!!! -rips out hair-  :upset:  :mad:  :hissyfit:

And just because it is a friggin dancing banana...... :bananacolor:  

Finally, a museum which states the truth and ignores liberal propaganda.

Quote from: "Ned"Finally, a museum which states the truth and ignores liberal propaganda.

Yeah, darn all that carbon dating and science mumbo jumbo!  

Quote from: "Ned"Finally, a museum which states the truth and ignores liberal propaganda.

 

Quote from: "Ned"Finally, a museum which states the truth and ignores liberal propaganda.

Well you are obviously pretty ignorant about natural selection and geology. Would you care to demonstrate your world beating knowledge  

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Ned"Finally, a museum which states the truth and ignores liberal propaganda.

Well you are obviously pretty ignorant about natural selection and geology. Would you care to demonstrate your world beating knowledge  

Do you prefer Bobby Darin or Bruce Springsteen?

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Ned"Finally, a museum which states the truth and ignores liberal propaganda.

Well you are obviously pretty ignorant about natural selection and geology. Would you care to demonstrate your world beating knowledge  

Do you prefer Bobby Darin or Bruce Springsteen?

Oh brother.

(Insert troll picture here.)

Quote from: "i_am_i"Oh brother.

(Insert troll picture here.)

And...
Your point is?

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Oh brother.

(Insert troll picture here.)

And...
Your point is?

Every time someone asks you to back up a statement you've made, you evade the question or don't answer it.  Which is trollish.  In case you missed the memo.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Every time someone asks you to back up a statement you've made, you evade the question or don't answer it.  Which is trollish.  In case you missed the memo.

Well, I haven't received an answer to my question re: Bobby Darin and Bruce Springsteen.

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Every time someone asks you to back up a statement you've made, you evade the question or don't answer it.  Which is trollish.  In case you missed the memo.

Well, I haven't received an answer to my question re: Bobby Darin and Bruce Springsteen.

Quid pro quo, you were asked a question first so answer the question asked otherwise no one has any obligation to answer yours.

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Every time someone asks you to back up a statement you've made, you evade the question or don't answer it.  Which is trollish.  In case you missed the memo.

Well, I haven't received an answer to my question re: Bobby Darin and Bruce Springsteen.

Your question is off topic, not to mention sarcastic and unrelated to the topic matter.  Seriously, have you ever belonged to a forum before, and have you read the rules and guidelines for this one?  You seem to be missing the point in a major way.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Seriously, have you ever belonged to a forum before, and have you read the rules and guidelines for this one?  

Yes, and yes.
Serious question; would you prefer if I just left?

I don't care what you do.  That's what the foe feature is for.  But if you're trying to interact here on a serious level, you're approaching it all wrong.

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Oh brother.

(Insert troll picture here.)

And...
Your point is?

Okay. My point is that you come across as a fool, sir, a complete waste of anyone's time, you are just one more annoying panhead that shows up on forums like this one from time to time, and you are not to be taken seriously in the least.

You have absolutely nothing to contribute, nor is it your intention to contribute. You're a bore, a dim-bulb with a festering little mind and a distorted sense of self. You're a type, a cliche, one of those bits of human detritus that washes up on the shores of internet discussion forums like noisome globs of toxic goo that the tide will eventually pull back into the vast sea of mediocrity whence you came.  

Now do you get my point, sweetheart?

With regard to the point about me not answering questions, this appears to be the only one I have been asked on this thread;

Quote from: "Tank"Well you are obviously pretty ignorant about natural selection and geology. Would you care to demonstrate your world beating knowledge  

Seeing as I am unsure how to distil my "world beating knowledge" into one post, I believe it is probably best that I step away from the forum at this point in time. This is an excellent forum and there is little point in getting people bogged down in these circular arguments.

Regards
Ned

P.S. The last post by i_am_i is one of the best I've seen on any message board. I am literally crying with laughter.

Quote from: "Ned"[...]I believe it is probably best that I step away from the forum at this point in time.

Yes, I think that might be a good idea.

Looks like i_am_i wins the internet for scaring off the troll.  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"Looks like i_am_i wins the internet for scaring off the troll.  

Please, call me J.

Quote from: "Ned"Seeing as I am unsure how to distil my "world beating knowledge" into one post...

There's this wonderful illustrative device called "examples".  With examples we are able to communicate our ideas and knowledge.  In this instance you could provide an example where you believe evolutionary theory is "liberal propaganda" and how creationist explanations better explain the natural phenomenon in question.  It's really not hard or difficult and if you're not willing to discuss thing on a discussion forum then this would beg the question as to why you were here in the first place?

Always a bridesmaid, never a bride ... <sigh>

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "Ned"Seeing as I am unsure how to distil my "world beating knowledge" into one post...

There's this wonderful illustrative device called "examples".  With examples we are able to communicate our ideas and knowledge.  In this instance you could provide an example where you believe evolutionary theory is "liberal propaganda" and how creationist explanations better explain the natural phenomenon in question.  It's really not hard or difficult and if you're not willing to discuss thing on a discussion forum then this would beg the question as to why you were here in the first place?

Well, here are  a few problems with evolutionary theory;
No explanation as to how the universe originated
How could living creatures come from non-life?
No solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists
No one was around to see the evolution of organisms. No one was around to see God create the earth and humankind.
Evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position

Remember also that the Theory of Relativity, which was also once considered correct, has now been discredited because it is based around the idea that the sun is a solid mass (which we now know to be untrue).

Quote from: "Ned"Well, here are  a few problems with evolutionary theory;
No explanation as to how the universe originated

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how the universe originated, see Cosmogony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmogony)

Quote from: "Ned"How could living creatures come from non-life

The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with how the replicating molecules originated, see Abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis)

Quote from: "Ned"No solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists

See Evolution and the Fossil record (http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/index.html)

Quote from: "Ned"No one was around to see the evolution of organisms.

See Evolution in action. (http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?p=965323#p965323)

Quote from: "Ned"No one was around to see God create the earth and humankind.

Agreed.

Quote from: "Ned"Evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position

Examples or FAIL!

Quote from: "Ned"Remember also that the Theory of Relativity, which was also once considered correct, has now been discredited because it is based around the idea that the sun is a solid mass (which we now know to be untrue).

Citation from a reputable source or FAIL!

Ned, you really really are way out of you depth here.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Ned"Evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position

Examples or FAIL!

There are many. Here is just one example;
A well known example of a "just so story" is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he stated:
“    "In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."[

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Ned"Remember also that the Theory of Relativity, which was also once considered correct, has now been discredited because it is based around the idea that the sun is a solid mass (which we now know to be untrue).

Citation from a reputable source or FAIL!

TomThumb on this forum a few days ago.

God Created Trollism.. How else does one Phish mindless biters of flashing light?

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Ned"Evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position

Examples or FAIL!

There are many. Here is just one example;
A well known example of a "just so story" is when Darwin, in his Origin of the Species, wrote a chapter entitled "Difficulties on Theory" in which he stated:
“    "In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

Quote mining  

QuoteI will now give two or three instances of diversified and of changed habits in the individuals of the same species. When either case occurs, it would be easy for natural selection to fit the animal, by some modification of its structure, for its changed habits, or exclusively for one of its several different habits. But it is difficult to tell, and immaterial for us, whether habits generally change first and structure afterwards; or whether slight modifications of structure lead to changed habits; both probably often change almost simultaneously. Of cases of changed habits it will suffice merely to allude to that of the many British insects which now feed on exotic plants, or exclusively on artificial substances. Of diversified habits innumerable instances could be given: I have often watched a tyrant flycatcher (Saurophagus sulphuratus) in South America, hovering over one spot and then proceeding to another, like a kestrel, and at other times standing stationary on the margin of water, and then dashing like a kingfisher at a fish. In our own country the larger titmouse (Parus major) may be seen climbing branches, almost like a creeper; it often, like a shrike, kills small birds by blows on the head; and I have many times seen and heard it hammering the seeds of the yew on a branch, and thus breaking them like a nuthatch. In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.

As we sometimes see individuals of a species following habits widely different from those both of their own species and of the other species of the same genus, we might expect, on my theory, that such individuals would occasionally have given rise to new species, having anomalous habits, and with their structure either slightly or considerably modified from that of their proper type. And such instances do occur in nature. Can a more striking instance of adaptation be given than that of a woodpecker for climbing trees and for seizing insects in the chinks of the bark? Yet in North America there are woodpeckers which feed largely on fruit, and others with elongated wings which chase insects on the wing; and on the plains of La Plata, where not a tree grows, there is a woodpecker, which in every essential part of its organisation, even in its colouring, in the harsh tone of its voice, and undulatory flight, told me plainly of its close blood-relationship to our common species; yet it is a woodpecker which never climbs a tree!

Read the whole thing, it makes sense then. Quotation from here http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Or ... pecies/6-1 (http://darwin.thefreelibrary.com/The-Origin-of-Species/6-1)

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Ned"Remember also that the Theory of Relativity, which was also once considered correct, has now been discredited because it is based around the idea that the sun is a solid mass (which we now know to be untrue).

Citation from a reputable source or FAIL!

TomThumb on this forum a few days ago.

Where?

And no comments on the links provided? No. Am I surprised? No. Ned, please try harder I'm not even raising a sweat here.

Quote from: "Tank"And no comments on the links provided? No. Am I surprised? No. Ned, please try harder I'm not even raising a sweat here.

Why should I take seriously citations from the liberal biased Wikipedia, and the forum of that bozo Richard Dawkins?

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "Tank"And no comments on the links provided? No. Am I surprised? No. Ned, please try harder I'm not even raising a sweat here.

Why should I take seriously citations from the liberal biased Wikipedia, and the forum of that bozo Richard Dawkins?

Because you are patently ignorant and wiki is a good place to start to counter the ignorance you suffer from. Sorry if this comes across as a little rude but you do lack knowledge in the areas you spout on about. If you bothered to read the links at RDF then you will notice they contain root links to core resources. The route to the information is simply there to be navigated, but it would be beyond your desire to learn wouldn't it? You know it all already so why bother to put any effort in. I see you again failed to follow up the link to the fossil record. And you've been quote mining and you can't be bothered to post the link to Tom Thumb's dumb arse refutation of the theory of special relativity.

I agree Dawkins is a Bozo, in fact my opinion of the man is lower than a slugs arse. However my opinion of him does not detract from his capability as an evolutionary biologist, nor the quality of some of the resources available via his site.

Ned

1/10 must try harder.[/list]

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "Tank"And no comments on the links provided? No. Am I surprised? No. Ned, please try harder I'm not even raising a sweat here.

Why should I take seriously citations from the liberal biased Wikipedia, and the forum of that bozo Richard Dawkins?

Because you are patently ignorant and wiki is a good place to start to counter the ignorance you suffer from. Sorry if this comes across as a little rude but you do lack knowledge in the areas you spout on about. If you bothered to read the links at RDF then you will notice they contain root links to core resources. The route to the information is simply there to be navigated, but it would be beyond your desire to learn wouldn't it? You know it all already so why bother to put any effort in. I see you again failed to follow up the link to the fossil record. And you've been quote mining and you can't be bothered to post the link to Tom Thumb's dumb arse refutation of the theory of special relativity.

I agree Dawkins is a Bozo, in fact my opinion of the man is lower than a slugs arse. However my opinion of him does not detract from his capability as an evolutionary biologist, nor the quality of some of the resources available via his site.

Ned

1/10 must try harder.[/list]

I did follow the links to the fossil record, and found them to be little more than tedious word-sludge.

I don't even need to use evolution to disprove Creationism Ned.. We can use more basic logic and reasoning to show why Creationism is a Sham. If you can tell me how one can design and create the entire list below into existence without self-contradiction, and with explanation of each of this listed examples below.., I will concede to creationism

Order
Existence
Intelligence
Information
Knowledge
Energy
Spatial Dimension
Self-awareness
Self-identity
Consciousness
A place for one's self to exist
Color: Black and White, or RGB
Infinity
Wisdom
Time
Sight
Hearing
Smell
Choices
Decisions
Mind Containment
Observation
Calculation
Manipulation
Thought
Perception
Reality
Will
Entity
Individualism
Feelings
Emotions
Experience
Experiences
Complexity
Cause and effect
Any Pattern or Patterns
Morality
Cognitive behavior
Inertia
Progress / progression
Mental Processing
Memory
Osculation
Intent
Ability
Positive and Negative
Imagination
Design
Creation
Point of View
Behavior
Life
Senses
Mobility
Power
Divinity
Math
Action
Reaction
Response
Communication
Big and small (size)
Speed
Choice
Decision
Strength
Material Physicality
Movement

Or, I can personally debunk that super Famous Creationist Scientists Sarfati
Genesis VS Science Part 2: Early Earth's Atmosphere (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4624)

Quote from: "Ned"I did follow the links to the fossil record, and found them to be little more than tedious word-sludge.

Which simply indicates your inability to read and understand intelligent research carefully presented. Again, when offered high quality information you do nothing but turn your nose up to it. Trying to educate some fundamental theists is like trying to teach a pig to sing. Ultimately futile and it annoys the pig. If you don't want to learn and remain wilfully ignorant that's your choice but it means your credibility as an interlocutor is 0/10.

Frankly I've met 14/15 years old's that have an almost infinitely better understanding of evolution than you do. Why are you posting here if you don't want to learn? Do you like to show off your lack of understanding of things scientific or what?

Quote from: "Tank"Do you like to show off your lack of understanding of things scientific or what?

Why, do you?

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "Tank"Do you like to show off your lack of understanding of things scientific or what?

Why, do you?

Hahahah, "NO U" as a cogent argument.

Seriously, I see that someone hasn't been reading their talkorigins.org. (http://www.talkorigins.org/)

Ned, the saddest thing about you is that you've obviously not realized that certitude is the surest barrier to learning.

eta:  also, Ned, if you're not going to follow up on the provided resources, don'tcha think it's rude to request them?

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "Tank"Do you like to show off your lack of understanding of things scientific or what?

Why, do you?

Ned, if that's the best you got, you got nothin'!

Since you have an aversion to Wikipedia, I won't use any links to it in my (very) short rebuttal as I am a bit short on time, preparing to move and all.

Quote from: "Ned"Well, here are  a few problems with evolutionary theory;
No explanation as to how the universe originated
How could living creatures come from non-life?

By definition evolutionary theory makes no claims into the origin of life or the universe.  It helps to understand what you're attacking before you lay arguments against it. Much of this I covered not too long ago in a post, here (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4390).  Please do read over it when you have the time.

QuoteNo solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists

This is incorrect.  Let me provide some examples for you.  Such arguments against the fossil record usually go hand in hand with the accusation of "no transitional fossils" even though the concept of what is transitional is often incorrect and people want some type of bird-duck-creature - an argument you'd see made by the likes of Ray Comfort and his ridiculous rhetoric.

Evolution is best thought of as a continuum rather than a jump from key fossil to key fossil. In essence, every fossil that is found represents a “transition” organisms are not static, the populations are always changing over time. Now, with regards to the fossil record we can say that we find transitional fossils between two specimens we already have discovered and would expect to find. One excellent example of this was the find of the specimen Tiktaalik roseae.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg99.imageshack.us%2Fimg99%2F6137%2Ftroseaesq5.jpg&hash=993e86cde8d961cdfd305b677bf576926bcb8a7d)

It is an example of a transition in one of the finest senses, not only between two already discovered fossils but one which supports an inferred evolutionary lineage between tetrapods and fish â€" an evolution which took some 20 million years or so to take place.

Also, the idea many creationists put forth like “not fully developed” is incorrect. Every organism that reaches developmental maturity is “fully developed”. Using this phrase in talking about evolutionary lineages is just wrong. It views evolution as being progressive toward some predestined goal, it’s not. Those that use such arguments attack evolution and they don’t even understand it.

Fossilization is also a process which seems to hinder people’s understanding as well. So I’ll go a bit into fossilization itself.

Fossilization is not a guaranteed process. Just because and organism dies does not mean its remains will become fossilized. Tarbuck and Lutgens (2002) define fossils as, "the remains or traces of prehistoric life" (pp. 182). Fossilization isn’t a snap process that occurs easily. Fossilization starts with burial and then goes through mineralization where the organism's remains are replaced by minerals. (Abedon, 2005). Because of what is involved in the formation of fossils, it is actually, truly amazing the detail of the fossil record and shows the dedication and hardwork of many scientists and their colleauges of the span of many years.

Monroe and Wincander (2001) comment on the formation of fossils stating, "Dissolved minerals can be precipitated in the pores of bones, teeth, and shells or can fill the spaces within cells of wood. Wood may be preserved by silica replacing the woody tissues; it then is referred to as petrified, a term that means "to become stone". Silicon dioxice (SiO2) or iron sulfide (FeS2) can completely replace the calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Insects and the leaves, stems, and roots of plants are commonly preserved as thin carbon films that show the details of the original organism." (pp. 178-179).

Tarbuck and Lutgens (2002) note the chances of an organism becoming fossilized are not in the middle of the curve â€" "only a tiny fraction of organisms that lived during the geologic past have been preserved as fossils. Normally, the remains of an animal or plant are totally destroyed." (183). This is one large hindrance to having a fossil record full of "transitions" or some ideal, smooth linear progression.

Among fossils we have two major groups, body and trace fossils. Bunch and Tesar (2003) comment on these two groups stating, "Body fossils are either actual remains of organisms in which the original chemicals have been replaced by other chemicals, thus retaining the original shape but not the organic chemistry. Bones, teeth, and shells are the most common animal body fossils. Petrified wood is a common plant body fossil. Softer tissues, such as those that compose worms and leaves are less apt to be preserved; they are more likely to have been eaten or broken down by decomposers (bacteria, etc.).

Trace fossils include imprints, tracks, burrows, feces, and chemical traces. They can be very informative about the habits and habitats of their creators. They also may tell us something about the organisms’ anatomy. For example, footprint size and the distance between prints in a track provide clues to the size and weight of the animal that made the track." (pp. 211).

Geological events such as erosion also play a large role in the finding of complete fossil "chains" as well as being able to find perfectly stratified sediment as well. Many variables work against piecing together a complete fossil record. The work that has been completely thus far is fairly amazing in what scientists have put together over the years and continue to do so.

But I digress from that, here's some more.  A new specimen of lizard (Adriosaurus microbrachis) which is about 95 million years old. This specimen shows, “complete loss of the manus and zeugopodium in association with elongation of the axial skeleton” (Palci and Caldwell, 2007). The significance of this find would be that it would fit the laymanistic concept of a “transitional” specimen from “lizard” to “snake”.

A similar find was reported in April of 2006 of an Upper Cretaceous serpent with functional hindlimbs as well as a sacrum supporting its pelvic girdle whereas these have been lacking in other specimens which more closely resemble modern snakes (Apesteguia and Zaher, 2006).

QuoteNo one was around to see the evolution of organisms. No one was around to see God create the earth and humankind.

Besides this being a faulty comparison, we see evolution all the time.  The rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a perfect example.  However, I'm sure you're talking about macroevolution which is simply evolution above the species level.  This takes place on a much longer time frame, however most people don't understand what constitutes macroevolutionary change.  Many people get this idea of marked change in morphology and outward appearance which isn't necessarily so.  The defining event for macroevolutionary change is what is known as the speciation event but isn't something that just happens but takes place over extended periods of time.

When speciation is talked about most people also don't realize that evolutionary lineages are not only linear and we are not only dealing with anagenesis which is when an entire population becomes so different from an ancestral population to warrant a new species designation.  Along with that we also have cladogenesis which is the creation of a new "branch on the tree" so to speak.  Such produces the visual representation that many know as analogous to a "tree" or "bush of life".

This graphic representation shows both anagenesis and cladogenesis:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu%2Fcourses%2Fv1001%2Fanaclad.gif&hash=dc66550759b392ec0c9b8a25d2cc6db450f91040)

Speciation is not just inferred from fossil evidence but has been amply supported through genetic and other biochemical research - such as the cyt c which I talk about in the thread I linked to earlier.  The bottomline in this area is that we have much evidence for the evolutionary explanation and none for the special creation explanation.

QuoteEvolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position

Umm, no. Are you getting these straight from the Creationist Debating Handbook?  Without getting into a long philosophy of science discussion, just have a look at a biological research paper, in this example one about Darwin's Finches by Peter and Rosemary Grant from last year:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/12/0911761106.full.pdf

A "just so" story is one which cannot be verified or falsified - therefore it is unscientific.

QuoteRemember also that the Theory of Relativity, which was also once considered correct, has now been discredited because it is based around the idea that the sun is a solid mass (which we now know to be untrue).

What?  Dude, seriously, where did you get this heaping pile of junk from?  Also, this is a fallacious statement in that the validity of a completely separate theory has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution.  I would encourage you to really sit down and read the thread I linked to as well as the paper I linked to by the Grants.  It seems as though you have a distorted idea of what evolution is, what it explains as well as some apparent misinformation you have run across.


References:

Abedon, S. (2005). Fossilization. Retrieved June 2, 2010 from http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1520.htm#fossilization

Apesteguia, S. and Zaher, H. (2006). A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum. Nature, 440, 1037-1040.

Bunch, B. and Tesar, J. (2003). Discover Science Almanac. New York: Hyperion.

Daeschler, E., Shubin, N., and Jenkins, F. (2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature, 440, 757-763.

Monroe, J. & Wicander, R. (2001). Physical geology: Exploring the earth. (4th ed.).Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

Palci, A. and Caldwell, M. (2007). Vestigial forelimbs and axial elongation in a 95 million-year-old non-snake squamate. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 27(1), 1-7.

Tarbuck, E. and Lutgens, F. (2002). Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

I don't understand how someone can be so seemingly afraid of information.  If the information is wrong, why not simply call it out?  Showing a fundamental lack of understanding for a concept you reject doesn't make any sense to me.  Why reject something you have no real knowledge about?  How can you argue that something isn't true when you don't even generally understand what that 'something' is?

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I don't understand how someone can be so seemingly afraid of information.  If the information is wrong, why not simply call it out?  Showing a fundamental lack of understanding for a concept you reject doesn't make any sense to me.  Why reject something you have no real knowledge about?  How can you argue that something isn't true when you don't even generally understand what that 'something' is?

I think for some it is ideology based in that their concept such as special creation is the only truth and therefore anything else is wrong.  They come to a discussion about evolution with an a priori determination of its validity without even really understanding the theory.  At least, in my experience this seems to be a large portion of the cases which is also solidified by the presentation of distorted and inaccurate information about the theory on creationist/anti-evolution sites and in their literature.

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "Ned"Evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position

Umm, no. Are you getting these straight from the Creationist Debating Handbook?

Actually, a quick indicates he's fetching his talking points from Conservapedia (http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution) -- not far off the mark in your guess:

QuoteIndividuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.

[Emphasis added]

The odds of that exact concatenation of words occurring independently must be pretty long.  Note also that he didn't cite his source, leading me to think that he might be aware of its true [lack of] utility in a forum devoted to reason.

Ned,

Now I can understand the conflicts in difference of ideological standing here, however we don't expend our time to share information with you out of just spite or to prove you wrong here.. We are actually giving you information and sources here to help you understand the subjects and topics to which you are attempting argue against, this is pretty much like getting a free education. Now I know some of us are a bit more blunt, and emotions start to run high (I get this way myself in certain political debates), But I strongly suggest you take some time and effort to read some of the information provided here. You don't even need to fully grasp everything to get a basic understanding of evolution, bio-genesis  , or various other scientific topics.. My Science VS Genesis Thread took a lot of time and effort to compile all the resources and information into an easy to understand scientific article for example, and that can be said for other peoples efforts here who take the time to post educational material for your benefit. So I didn't write that thread to only specifically prove said creationist scientists wrong, but to actually provide educational material, and to prevent the spreading of false information by those who are destroying the education system of this country.. So all I ask of you, is for you to reflect on that

Cheers!

Quote from: "TheJackel"Ned,

Now I can understand the conflicts in difference of ideological standing here, however we don't expend our time to share information with you out of just spite or to prove you wrong here.. We are actually giving you information and sources here to help you understand the subjects and topics to which you are attempting argue against, this is pretty much like getting a free education. Now I know some of us are a bit more blunt, and emotions start to run high (I get this way myself in certain political debates), But I strongly suggest you take some time and effort to read some of the information provided here. You don't even need to fully grasp everything to get a basic understanding of evolution, bio-genesis  , or various other scientific topics.. My Science VS Genesis Thread took a lot of time and effort to compile all the resources and information into an easy to understand scientific article for example, and that can be said for other peoples efforts here who take the time to post educational material for your benefit. So I didn't write that thread to only specifically prove said creationist scientists wrong, but to actually provide educational material, and to prevent the spreading of false information by those who are destroying the education system of this country.. So all I ask of you, is for you to reflect on that

Cheers!

Thanks for that. Some extremely interesting stuff there. (Thanks as well to Tank and anyone else who posted similar material.)

By the way, I have read over the material kindly provided by members of this forum, and have to say I am still totally unconvinced by the arguments in favour of evolution.

Quote from: "Ned"By the way, I have read over the material kindly provided by members of this forum, and have to say I am still totally unconvinced by the arguments in favour of evolution.

Why totally unconvinced? What exactly have you read, and what counterpoints do you have for those specific items?

Quote from: "Ned"By the way, I have read over the material kindly provided by members of this forum, and have to say I am still totally unconvinced by the arguments in favour of evolution.

Please provide one carefully argued retort then rather a blanket dismissal of one of (if not the most) fully supported scientific theories there has ever been. Do that and show us you have understood anything at all. Go on, write something worth reading.

Quote from: "Tank"Go on, write something worth reading.

something worth reading

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "Tank"Go on, write something worth reading.

something worth reading

Another example of your vacuous attitude. Why don't you do us all a favour and just...?

Quote from: "Ned"By the way, I have read over the material kindly provided by members of this forum, and have to say I am still totally unconvinced by the arguments in favour of evolution.

...You being unconvinced does not make Evolution any less a scientific fact than it is. If you do not accept the scientific evidence, then you don't accept it. It is rather foolish though, since scientific evidence is the strongest form of evidence we have.

That said, please don't spam for higher post count (Seems to me that that is what you are doing)

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "Tank"Go on, write something worth reading.

something worth reading

Reported for being off topic and being a troll.  Ignore it and it will go away/get banned.

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "Tank"Go on, write something worth reading.

something worth reading

You have received a warning for trolling, Ned. Another incident of trolling will result in a one week ban from HAF.

Obviously, all us Happy Atheists know they're full of shit, but Creationists will eat this shit up!  So, let's actually discredit their proof that the earth is 6000 years old, and evolution is a lie.  Are their facts even true, did they really dig up T-Rex meat?

1) Soft tissue from a Tyrannosaurus!  Couldn't be millions of years old, so explain that with your heathen science!
2) Fossilized tree spanning sediment layers.  Those layers must have formed in less time than it took for the tree to decay.  Therefore the Earth was formed instantly!
3) Sedimentary layers all bent to together, they all must have been fresh at the same time.  Earthquakes don't count, explain it away!
4) How did those molecules just spring to life in the beginning? Assume Abiogenesis doesn't exist in your explaination... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg)
5) This is proof evolution is bunk: Mutations only act on ALREADY EXISTING Genetic Codes. PWNED!
6) The Magnetosphere has been deteriorating at a rate of 7% a year, if the earth is millions of years old, WHY ISN'T IT GONE YET?!?

So, Atheists, since your precious theory of evolution is now dead, you must admit that God exists and he created everything.  (Evolution OR Creationism.  That's not a false dichotomy at all...)

Seriously, I am aware that these don't disprove evolution, but I couldn't explain them away to a creationists if they brought it up.  So, what do you freethinkers have to actually dispute these creationists, I need a little help here.

Quote from: "KebertX"Seriously, I am aware that these don't disprove evolution, but I couldn't explain them away to a creationists if they brought it up.  So, what do you freethinkers have to actually dispute these creationists, I need a little help here.

I'm pretty sure those have all been addressed on this forum at one time or another and if not here then check out TalkOrigins.

Are you being serious?

Quote1) Soft tissue from a Tyrannosaurus!  Couldn't be millions of years old, so explain that with your heathen science!

They found it inside a really thick fossilized leg bone, and the soft tissue was effectively enclosed in what is equivalent to a well preserved time capsule.. Hence, such finds are likely to exist within many such fossilized bones that remain intact protected from outside elements, and mineralization ect.

QuoteThe package weighed more than 2,000 pounds, which turned out to be just above their helicopter’s capacity, so they split it in half. One of B. rex’s leg bones was broken into two big pieces and several fragmentsâ€"just what Schweitzer needed for her micro-scale explorations.

Quote"some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,”

QuoteIn the course of testing a B. rex bone fragment further, Schweitzer asked her lab technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, to put it in weak acid, which slowly dissolves bone, including fossilized boneâ€"but not soft tissues. One Friday night in January 2004, Wittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. “[The chip] was curved so much, I couldn’t get it in focus,” Wittmeyer recalls. She used forceps to flatten it. “My forceps kind of sunk into it, made a little indentation and it curled back up. I was like, stop it!” Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved. Suddenly Schweitzer and Wittmeyer were dealing with something no one else had ever seen. For a couple of weeks, Wittmeyer said, it was like Christmas every day.

QuoteFurther discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,”

QuoteGeologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

Let me remind you that these are "microscopic samples" encased in fossilized  bones, and discovered through a process that has never been done.. Hence, we don't fully understand how fossilization can preserve microscopic soft tissues within bones. Especially Bones of this size.. It's funny how Creationists jump out and call Creationism without even waiting for scientific study, results, or even reading the entire sum of evidence without making up magical theory as the magic truth, especially when they can't even prove their GOD exists..

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... z0rp7tuJdo (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=3#ixzz0rp7tuJdo)

Quote[Schweitzer] indicated that the bones have a distinct odor, characteristic of “embalming fluids.” Therefore, it is possible that the bones landed in some chemical stew that preserved the soft tissue inside from decomposition….The new study reveals that the cortical bone within T rex [femora] may, under certain conditions, retain cellular and subcellular details. Under normal conditions, fossilization replaces living material with minerals. In this case, the soft tissue was protected from degradation, possibly through some chemical process, then desiccated to prevent further changes. (Deem nd; emphasis added)

----

Quote2) Fossilized tree spanning sediment layers.  Those layers must have formed in less time than it took for the tree to decay.  Therefore the Earth was formed instantly!

LMAO!

That's entirely possible and commonly found in flood zones like around the mississippi river where multiple floods lead to multiple sedimentary deposits. But for giggles I will quote from a saved txt to which I no longer have the link to:

1) How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without
rotting or being knocked down?

QuoteTrees commonly remain upright during multiple river floods,
season after season, year after year. Some trees (such as the
modern bald cypress) are tolerant of immersion in water, and
will survive floods commonly. Even if trees are killed by immersion
during the period of a river flood (weeks or months), the tree does
not rot away or fall over as promptly as is commonly thought. Trees
often survive upright, after death, for years or decades. Some
are known to have remained upright for at least a century after death.
For example, there are trees standing upright in Reelfoot Lake
in Tennessee that were submerged by an earthquake that happened in
the 1800s. Some were killed by the water, others have survived.
There is also ample evidence in the fossil record that trees
did rot and fall down, and these are often more common than the
ones that remained upright.

2) How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for
the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers?

QuoteThere are two components to this question: a) how long a
tree can stand upright while being buried (whether dead or alive),
and b) how long sedimentary layers take to build up.
A tree that remains standing for decades to centuries (whether
dead for that whole period or alive) would have ample time for metres
of sediment to accumulate on a river floodplain or a coastline, if
sedimentation conditions are suitable. A single river flood
can deposit tens of centimetres to metres of sediment. Granted,
only selected environments have sufficiently high depositional
rates to realistically bury trees to metres depth in under a
few centuries, but they are not rare, and trees are commonly found
there (e.g., river deltas and floodplains are). As mentioned above,
trees can remain upright for longer than people commonly think.

3) How can a tree representing a short life span (on evolution’s
geological time scale) stand erect through geological layers
representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years?"

QuoteMost commonly, the misconception develops because
it is assumed that if geologists claim a formation 1000 metres
thick took 100 million years to deposit, therefore every
metre of it (such as the metres that may be piled up around a tree)
took 100000 years to form, and every centimetre took a thousand
years. Such an assumption will be spectacularly wrong in any
environment where the depositional rate varies greatly. In the
deep ocean, it might be reasonable, but on a river floodplain,
it is wrong in the extreme. A soil horizon a few centimetres
thick may have taken thousands of years to form, a river
channel sandstone metres thick might have been deposited in a
few weeks at that spot, and the bottom of the river channel
commonly erodes away sediments that were deposited previously
(creating a gap).

Or for demonstrative purposes:

Tidal marsh encroaching on forest, Amherst Marsh, NS.

Sea level is rising slowly causing the tidal salt marshes to build up and advance onto the land surface. Here the salt meadows are invading a forest. Dating of the trees at the base of the marsh shows that tide level is rising about 30 cm (1 foot) per century; the outermost tree is 1000 years old and is buried by 1 meter of peat.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.exchangedlife.com%2FCreation%2Frebut%2Fmarsh.jpg&hash=6a34c796785bdf8aafb938f5bbfc3cb63d611a6a)

Quote3) Sedimentary layers all bent to together, they all must have been fresh at the same time.  Earthquakes don't count, explain it away!

Read above..And volcanic activity can easily accomplish the above..

Wiki:

QuoteIn geology, such fossils are referred to as upright fossils, trunks, or trees. Brief periods of rapid sedimentation favor their formation. Upright fossils are typically found in layers associated with an actively subsiding coastal plain or rift basin, or with the accumulation of volcanic material around a periodically erupting stratovolcano.

Quote4) How did those molecules just spring to life in the beginning? Assume Abiogenesis doesn't exist in your explaination... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg)

Disingenuous argument to force the removal of evidence, or to assume Abiogenesis doesn't exist in our explanation, or the fact that we can in fact create, digitize, encode, or program synthetic life. If you like I can provide links, and youtube videos.

Molecular Dynamics: Life: Gravity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg&NR=1)
Genome, DNA, Reproduction (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw80oduQckM&feature=channel)
Darwin, Origin of Life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sui4CadfhDM)
Age dating,Black radiation, Phonton energy, Nuclear decay rates (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loPHYsLHb5Q&feature=channel)
Rubberband and Protein: Thermodynamics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKpXlbeHwh4)
Photon Energy and Life (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPj4bUH-6C8&NR=1)

Synthetic Life:
Video: Synthetic Life 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKZ-GjSaqgo)
Video: Synthetic Life 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHIocNOHd7A)

or:

* http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... gists.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1208047/Life-order-Man-organisms-months-say-biologists.html)
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life)
* http://gizmodo.com/307958/craig-venter- ... en-created (http://gizmodo.com/307958/craig-venter-claims-artificial-life-has-been-created)
* http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... rentPage=2 (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/synthetic_genome?currentPage=2)
* http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003908.html (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003908.html)

DNA Robots:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33483705/ns/...nnovation/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33483705/ns/...nnovation/)

DNA robots that can reproduce themselves:

http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=8412.php (http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=8412.php)
http://2020science.org/2008/01/26/synthe...echnology/ (http://2020science.org/2008/01/26/synthe...echnology/)

Example of Self organization:

Self Orgainization and Complexity (http://www.cmcrossroads.com/blogs-menu/featured-blogs/brad-appletons-acme-blog/12927-self-organization-and-complexity)

or we can watch videos on self-organization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHGifWhoJ_M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHGifWhoJ_M)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeKWDOJv ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeKWDOJvK2o&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me5Zzm2T ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me5Zzm2TXh4&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOho0VHP ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOho0VHPV4s&feature=related)
http://vimeo.com/9975725 (http://vimeo.com/9975725)
http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/29159962 (http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/29159962)

Enzymes:

Strong diffusional mixing and short delivery times typical for micrometer and sub-micrometer reaction volumes lead to a special situations of self oscillation where the turnover times of individual enzyme molecules become the largest characteristic time scale of the chemical kinetics. Under these conditions, populations of cross-regulating allosteric enzymes form molecular networks that exhibit various kinds of self-organized coherent collective dynamics.

RNA:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162009.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222162009.htm) (no human intervention)
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0mp6w24211696h3/ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0mp6w24211696h3/)

* self organizing algorithms through the study of RNA (http://www.springerlink.com/content/7n647v7412165jn7/)

Genes:

* Gene self-organizing maps (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15603788)
http://blog.peltarion.com/2007/04/10/the-self-organized-gene-part-1/

-

Biochemical Self-organization
Self-Organizing Biochemical cycles (http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12503.full)
Physical Role in Biochemical Self Organization (http://organprint.missouri.edu/www/fibr-pub/neagu05-178104.pdf)


Here is a Good article for you to read in regards to Early Earth's Atmosphere. This destroys the argument that Creationist scientist Sarfati used to attempt to prove the Earth was created vs formed through natural process..

Genesis VS Science Part 2: Early Earth's Atmosphere (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4624)

Quote5) This is proof evolution is bunk: Mutations only act on ALREADY EXISTING Genetic Codes. PWNED!

That's not proof against evolution LOL.. Everything in existence has pattern, chaotic systems with feed back, and order that comes from chaos. All you did here was state that a pattern can lead to the change of another pattern should said pattern influence and exert pressure on the other.. Your argument is like stating a color pattern can only act on already existing color to form new patterns of color.. What exactly are you attempting to prove with this .

Quote6) The Magnetosphere has been deteriorating at a rate of 7% a year, if the earth is millions of years old, WHY ISN'T IT GONE YET?!?

Where is your Data for this, and do you even know how it works? Hell, I googled your little number 6 to come up empty on any such claim.. And you do realize that our magnetosphere has it's own weather patterns right?

# The internal field of the Earth ("main field") arising from electric currents in the core. It is dipole-like, modified by higher harmonic contributions.
# The ring current field, carried by plasma trapped in the dipole-like field around Earth, typically at distances 3â€"8 RE (less during large storms). Its current flows (approximately) around the magnetic equator, mainly clockwise when viewed from north. (A small counterclockwise ring current flows at the inner edge of the ring, caused by the fall-off in plasma density as Earth is approached.)
# The field confining the Earth's plasma and magnetic field inside the magnetospheric cavity. The currents responsible for it flow on the magnetopause, the interface between the magnetosphere and the solar wind, described in the introduction. Their flow, again, may be viewed as arising from the geometry of the magnetic field (rather than from any driving voltage), a consequence of "Ampére's law" (embodied in Maxwell's equations) which in this case requires an electric current to flow along any interface between magnetic fields of different directions and/or intensities.

Nasa Says nothing about 7% loss each year..

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.c ... etic+field (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/magnetic+field)

"Earth's Inconstant magnetic field
- Our planet's magnetic field is in a constant state of change, say researchers who are beginning to understand how it behaves and why."

It´s only explaining the behavior of our magnetic field and that it's constantly changing. The article is not saying that we have just found out our magnetic field changes. It says we are understanding better WHY it changes and HOW it changes. THAT´S IT!

@ TheJackal  :hail:  
You put a lot of effort into that, thank you.

I see the funding is past the 3 million mark.  

And it will be in the Cliff!

I don't think they have completed much of it though so might I suggest the near by Dallas Zoo.

Quote from: "Ned"By the way, I have read over the material kindly provided by members of this forum, and have to say I am still totally unconvinced by the arguments in favour of evolution.

Hey, when you're ready to talk turkey, lemme know.  I personally don't understand how someone can argue that an invisible guy up in some place called Heaven can know everything, do anything, be good, and still permit evil -- and yet that same someone can reject a theory which is supported by multiple converging lines of evidence from different scientific disciplines.

:baffled:

Quote from: "Tank"@ TheJackal  :hail:  :hail:  :hail:

And again to The Jackel  :hail:  

And if TX is the wrong side of the country for a field trip, you should know there is a similar one in Akron, Ohio.  http://www.akronfossils.com/news.html

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't mean to quote the whole thing.  I'm used to Twitter, where you click on the person's last post to reply to them. I've been using the Quote-Button like an @Reply.

TheJackel --> WOW! You really took me seriously.  I always forget that you can't convey sarcasm in writing.  No, I was just mocking the information provided on the museum's website.

You also put an obvious shit ton of work into rebuking my "arguments."  You wrote a whole freaking essay!  I appreciate it!  I didn't necessarily know any of these things before (except that bit about the fossilized trees), but I wasn't claiming that evolution was a lie, or that the earth was 6000 years old.  Thanks for the logical information!  That's what this forum is for... I suppose.

Quote from: "Tank"@ TheJackal  :hail:  :up:

Quote from: "KebertX"WOW! You really took me seriously.  I always forget that you can't convey sarcasm in writing.  No, I was just mocking the information provided on the museum's website.

You also put an obvious shit ton of work into rebuking my "arguments."  You wrote a whole freaking essay!  I appreciate it!  I didn't necessarily know any of these things before (except that bit about the fossilized trees), but I wasn't claiming that evolution was a lie, or that the earth was 6000 years old.  Thanks for the logical information!  That's what this forum is for... I suppose.

For the future, please refrain from quoting large posts when you have a general comment to the whole thing - it makes it somewhat harder to navigate the thread. You can, hwever, do something along the lines of:

QuoteFirst paragraph

*wall of text*

It's a lot cleaner and better.  

Everytime a new creationist musuem is built, a kitten dies.....and I love kittens

Quote from: "Cite134"Everytime a new creationist musuem is built, a kitten dies.....and I love kittens

Hey, if god didn't want kittens to die, he wouldn't have made their little bodies so perfect for creationist museum foundation construction.

KebertX ,

I don't think it was neccessarily directed at you vs those who actually use those arguments, sorry for the confusion  :P And I only put in very little of what I could possibly have put in, however that would have gone overboard :hey:

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Cite134"Everytime a new creationist musuem is built, a kitten dies.....and I love kittens

Hey, if god didn't want kittens to die, he wouldn't have made their little bodies so perfect for creationist museum foundation construction.

haha

Quote from: "Cite134"Everytime a new creationist musuem is built, a kitten dies.....and I love kittens

Everytime I read this thread, I die a little.

Quote from: "Cite134"Everytime a new creationist musuem is built, a kitten dies.....and I love kittens :|

QuoteEverytime I read this thread, I die a little.

Or you get a healthy education to which dispels Creationist myths and misinformation..


And every time someone doesn't take the time to educate themselves a bunny savagely eats its own family and friends alive.. WATER SHIP DOWN! WATER SHIP DOWN!

Quote from: "TheJackel"And every time someone doesn't take the time to educate themselves a bunny savagely eats its own family and friends alive..

Eww.

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "Cite134"Everytime a new creationist musuem is built, a kitten dies.....and I love kittens lol'd.

Quote from: "Cite134"

Quote from: "Ned"

Quote from: "Cite134"Everytime a new creationist musuem is built, a kitten dies.....and I love kittens lol'd.

Why?

[/quote]
Why?[/quote]


Why would you die a little from reading this thread?

Maybe it's coincidental.

Quote from: "Tank"@ TheJackal  :hail:  :), it drives me batty to see such nonsense waved around. People that do that are only phishing for gullible people to manipulate into the ideology while knowing that most people wouldn't know any better.. :)

Cheers!

... wtf

ech, this is ridiculous I don't know what's worse the fact that this place exists or that it apparently got government funding. Furthermore that commercial, among other things, was pretty deceptive.The first part of the video was pretty much a smear campaign. Why can't they just accept that science is in conflict with their beliefs and try to debunk it using rationnal and honest arguments, or better yet embrace it and educate themselves. That's why we have real museums.

Quote from: "Asmodean"...And every time a kitten dies, another puppy cries another tear. Butterfly effect, you know...

And another one gone, and another one gone and another one bites the dust.