236 replies to this topic

[the L]

[Arbitran]

I didn't get much farther than two minutes in before I had to start laughing my ass off at how asinine this is. Well, at least now it's clear that you do deny evolutionary biology L, as much as you've been claiming otherwise. But that you really chose to display your blatant ignorance of science in the form of a video from UFOTV.com is either the bravest or the most delirious thing I think you've ever done.

[the L]

I didnt want that this become personal. Please discuss video.

[Arbitran]

the L, on 23 September 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

I didnt want that this become personal. Please discuss video.

I wasn't trying to make it personal; I was noting first and foremost the idiocies of the video. That must indeed count as discussing the video. What else need be said?

[the L]

Arbitran, on 23 September 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Well, at least now it's clear that you do deny evolutionary biology L, as much as you've been claiming otherwise. But that you really chose to display your blatant ignorance of science in the form of a video from UFOTV.com is either the bravest or the most delirious thing I think you've ever done.

[the L]

Please this thread isnt about me. Lets be polite, social and friendly and discuss about video.

[Arbitran]

the L, on 23 September 2012 - 09:20 PM, said:

Please this thread isnt about me. Lets be polite, social and friendly and discuss about video.

Very well. What about the video? In just the first minute-and-a-half it managed to make some of the most inane logical fallacies that I've ever heard. It's just more anti-evolutionist idiocy.

[Ryu]

At first the video seems to sound interesting in that our methods of carbon and radioactive testing is not always accurate. I suppose even radioactivity can only go so far.

HOWEVER...for example, when he talks about the formation of coal and how timber can be turned to coal in a short amount of time under great pressure, it sounds somewhat plausible...I can consider this aspect but when he then tries to apply this same reasoning to elements that are far harder and denser such as various rocks then I start to have a problem.

Just the formation of the planet itself took quite a length of time before it coalesced and cooled so a stable atmosphere could begin to envelop the planet.

At one point it seemed that some scientists were even wondering how life could have formed on our planet so soon after it was formed until they began to realize that carbon dating can only go back so far; I figure that our planet is far older than the general 4.6 billion years. I would wager that it is closer to 10 or even 20 billion years old...maybe even older.

When I look at the rest of the solar system I cannot help but think that perhaps it is far older than we first figured; our planet may simply be the last in line, so to speak, for life to exist.

Anyways...I could only handle a few minutes of this before turning it off.

I agree that Darwins theories have been refined and fine tuned but he did lay the basic ground work and this is how it is for all theories. Once the foundation is confirmed then we can go to work developing and refining it. All theories evolve this way (excuse the pun) and they must.

[the L]

Can polar bear become whale in given time?

[Arbitran]

the L, on 23 September 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

Can polar bear become whale in given time?

A polar bear lineage could eventually produce a species which resembles a whale. Conceivably. Will a bear circle back in phylogeny and rejoin the whale clade? No. And a bear certainly won't "morph" into a whale. Ever.

Edited by Arbitran, 23 September 2012 - 10:12 PM.

[the L]

Do we have missing link?

[ninjadude]

the L, on 23 September 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

Do we have missing link?

there is no such thing

[the L]

Arbitran, on 23 September 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

A polar bear lineage could eventually produce a species which resembles a whale. Conceivably. Will a bear circle back in phylogeny and rejoin the whale clade? No. And a bear certainly won't "morph" into a whale. Ever.

Bear can become animal that look like whale but isnt whale?

ninjadude, on 23 September 2012 - 10:25 PM, said:

there is no such thing

So do we have evidence of evolution of todays anatomicly human?

[Arbitran]

the L, on 23 September 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

Bear can become animal that look like whale but isnt whale?

The bear lineage could one day yield taxa which resemble whales, sure. It's conceivable. What won't happen is a bear "becoming" some other animal. Things don't morph into other things.

the L, on 23 September 2012 - 10:26 PM, said:

So do we have evidence of evolution of todays anatomicly human?

Yes, we do. And you have been shown mountains of it, repeatedly. Your sheer ignorance of it is astounding.

[the L]

Ryu, on 23 September 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

I figure that our planet is far older than the general 4.6 billion years. I would wager that it is closer to 10 or even 20 billion years old...maybe even older.

Why?