+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Evolution? Creationism? (/thread-230325.html)
Evolution? Creationism? - blah - 05-23-2006 01:11 PM
Saw this article and it made me think about a lot of the theories and numbers thrown out by so-called scientists...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12875772/?GT1=8199
Quote:Shrimplike creature was thought to have gone extinct 60 million years ago
![[Image: 060519_sci_fossil_hmed4p.h2.jpg]](http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060519/060519_sci_fossil_hmed4p.h2.jpg)
Here's the part I don't understand. This species was supposedly extinct 60 Million years ago. 60 Million? Now it is all of a sudden discovered, exactly how it was in the fossil record. So what happened? Either the carbon dating method of determining the age of fossils is flawed or this species did not evolve over 60 million years. We supposedly went from being monkeys to man in under a million, you would think something would have changed over 60 million years.
Does anybody else think this seriously calls into question some of these unproven theories?
- GrayBeard - 05-23-2006 01:18 PM
Well, I guess we can find out whether it tastes like shrimp or lobster. Yumm, Yumm, either way! I will take 3 dozen, panned in butter.
- Bourgeois_Rage - 05-23-2006 01:47 PM
Not really, there's a pretty large consensus that we don't know of every single living thing on this planet. As for a lack of fossils, there are very specific circumstances that must exist for fossils to form. Just because there isn't a fossil does not mean that something did not exist. As for not changing, it probably has in some subtle way. Evolution only changes things when there is some pressure to change. If the shimp remained adapted to the environment it lived in, it would not need to change.
- GrayBeard - 05-23-2006 01:50 PM
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Evolution only changes things when there is some pressure to change. If the shimp remained adapted to the environment it lived in, it would not need to change.
What pressures would cause an ape to change into a man?
- Tulsaman - 05-23-2006 01:52 PM
GrayBeard Wrote:Well, I guess we can find out whether it tastes like shrimp or lobster. Yumm, Yumm, either way! I will take 3 dozen, panned in butter.
don't forget the beer and the cocktail sauce. lmfao
- georgia_tech_swagger - 05-23-2006 01:56 PM
GrayBeard Wrote:Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Evolution only changes things when there is some pressure to change. If the shimp remained adapted to the environment it lived in, it would not need to change.
What pressures would cause an ape to change into a man?
The breaking up of Pangea and change from tropical forest to arid plain across much of the African mainland.
- GrayBeard - 05-23-2006 01:58 PM
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:GrayBeard Wrote:Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Evolution only changes things when there is some pressure to change. If the shimp remained adapted to the environment it lived in, it would not need to change.
What pressures would cause an ape to change into a man?
The breaking up of Pangea and change from tropical forest to arid plain across much of the African mainland.
Decrease in hair, maybe, but that doesn't explain increased brain function, speach, etc.
- Bourgeois_Rage - 05-23-2006 02:20 PM
First it is inccorect to say that man evolved from Apes. IT is better to say that humans and apes had a common ancestor.
There are a variety of hypotheses as to what caused the changes. But geographical isolation was one. Basically once a creature (meaning any lifeform) inhabits a biological niche other creatures cannot alos inhabit that niche without finding an equialibrium with the other creatures or knocking them out of that niche. At some point bipedal creatures became successful enough to occupy a certain niche.
One hypothesis says that once the arms were freed from walking they started to be used for other things like manipulating early tools. As tools were used, those with larger capacities for thought (bigger brains) were more successful and survived in greater numbers than those that did not.
I can't possibly go into detail on every single hypothesis or point of interest. Scientists have been working for years on this problem and if you really want to know much of what there is to know, I suggest you point your browser to Talk Origins.
Re: Evolution? Creationism? - OptimisticOwl - 05-23-2006 03:05 PM
blah Wrote:Saw this article and it made me think about a lot of the theories and numbers thrown out by so-called scientists...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12875772/?GT1=8199
Quote:Shrimplike creature was thought to have gone extinct 60 million years ago
Here's the part I don't understand. This species was supposedly extinct 60 Million years ago. 60 Million? Now it is all of a sudden discovered, exactly how it was in the fossil record. So what happened? Either the carbon dating method of determining the age of fossils is flawed or this species did not evolve over 60 million years. We supposedly went from being monkeys to man in under a million, you would think something would have changed over 60 million years.
Does anybody else think this seriously calls into question some of these unproven theories?
This is more proof of global warming. How else can you explain this sudden discovery now of all times? Either that or it is a conspiracy...
- blah - 05-23-2006 03:17 PM
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:First it is inccorect to say that man evolved from Apes. IT is better to say that humans and apes had a common ancestor.
There are a variety of hypotheses as to what caused the changes. But geographical isolation was one. Basically once a creature (meaning any lifeform) inhabits a biological niche other creatures cannot alos inhabit that niche without finding an equialibrium with the other creatures or knocking them out of that niche. At some point bipedal creatures became successful enough to occupy a certain niche.
One hypothesis says that once the arms were freed from walking they started to be used for other things like manipulating early tools. As tools were used, those with larger capacities for thought (bigger brains) were more successful and survived in greater numbers than those that did not.
I can't possibly go into detail on every single hypothesis or point of interest. Scientists have been working for years on this problem and if you really want to know much of what there is to know, I suggest you point your browser to Talk Origins.
I am very familiar with the theories that are out there for man's evolution. It just seems to me that if you have a supposed fossil record showing that these creatures existed 60 million years ago, that one of three things would have happened.
1. Species goes extinct. (Didn't happen, they just found one.)
2. Species evolves over time and branches out in a similar fashion to what was hypothesized for humans. (Might have happened and they haven't found the other species yet, but hypothesis says that evolved species would have an advantage and lead to extinction of origianl species (Didn't happen see #1.))
3. Species does not change at all over 60 million years even though we have supposedly gone through many ice ages and ocean levels and ocean saline levels, as well as other environmental factors.
In my mind that calls into question either evolution as a whole or the dating method we use to date fossils (i.e. if it the fossils of this creature that were found are really only a couple hundred years old.)
- OptimisticOwl - 05-23-2006 03:37 PM
Some species have supposedly evolved over time. Others supposedly have not, or have evolved very little - sharks, armadillos, etc. I know of no rule in the theory of evolution that says any given species must evolve or must not. If there is an envoronment change that makes a creature no longer well adapted, then it either adapts (man?) or dies (mammoth). Likewise a spontaneous mutation will either thrive or die out depending on its ability to handle its environment.
Carbon dating is based on the half life of carbon. I don't know why God would want to set it up to fool us that way. If so, I presume he also set up the speed of light and those stars to fool us into thinking they were created billions of years ago instead of a couple of hundred years ago.
- blah - 05-23-2006 05:06 PM
OptimisticOwl Wrote:Carbon dating is based on the half life of carbon. I don't know why God would want to set it up to fool us that way. If so, I presume he also set up the speed of light and those stars to fool us into thinking they were created billions of years ago instead of a couple of hundred years ago.
I was insinuating that it may be possible that the test of carbon dating is flawed, not that the half-life of carbon is in dispute.
Although I don't have any links to support, I have heard of a number of dating tests that have turned up items that were supposedly really old that were not.
- Brookes Owl - 05-23-2006 06:01 PM
A species does not have to die out even as other species evolve from it. Imagine, as GTS pointed out, geographic separation. A given species in a given region can be perfectly well suited to its environment. That same species, separated geograhically and subjected to different conditions (weather, flora, fauna), may adapt. Thus the "original" form and an adapted form exist simultaneously.
- SouthGAEagle - 05-23-2006 07:39 PM
Carbon dating is only used for archaeological artifacts, as it works for about the past 50,000 years.... after that, all the C-14 has changed to C-12, and there's nothing left to measure.
There are other radiometric dating techniques - such as Potassium/Argon or Uranium/Lead that are useful for dating geologic structures, though.
Just thought I'd throw that in.
- Bourgeois_Rage - 05-23-2006 08:51 PM
Yup, Carbon Dating is not what you want. There are a variety of methods that are used to date fossils. Another one that is not mentioned is using strata to date the fossils. Each on it's own may not be convincing, but taken as a whole with each giving consistent answers they tell a story that is hard to dispute.
- Machiavelli - 05-24-2006 03:38 PM
The latest hypothesis on man's (homo-sapien) evolution is the ice age. The smarter you were the better chance you had of survivng this rapidly changing environment. Homo-neandertalis didn't make it. Either did homo-habilis. It is correct saying we didn't evolve from apes but we had a common ancestor. Also carbon 14's half-life is 5600 yrs. Potassium/Argon dating is 1.3 million years. Carbon dating is only good for about 50,000 yrs. I did hear about a tree along the side of a road that dated back to the Paleozoic. It was probably a carbon unit that was breathed in from the exhaust of a car's tail pipe.
- Endzone2 - 05-25-2006 02:50 AM
We are told by these wackos that it took gazillions of years of mutations for us to get to humans. Alright, how can a woman start with one cell and form a perfect human in baby form in 9 months? You're talking trillions of cells with thousands of unique functions and interactions with other cells that make up more complex structures, etc. The brain alone has billions of neurons that cane form almost unlimited combinations of synapsis. How can evolution put this altogether in 9 months when its M.O. is chaos and mutation and chance? Please explain. If you say that some how evolution is smart enough to build in a computer to make all this function then isn't that going against the M.O. of evolution which is random chance? The best supercompter in the world could not keep track of how to make a baby in 9 months. How can evolution do it? Is evolution also a god? You may say, "well it's in the genes". O.K. fine, the plans to my house are in the blueprints, but just putting the blueprints on the land that my house is going to be built on doesn't build the house. How does the one cell become a baby? What force is at work? It surely isn't random chance which is what this theory is based on.
How can a baby grow to a adult in 18 years? How do all those cells reproduce themselves in the right proportions? How did evolution solve that when everything happens by chance in evolution?
Nobody in their right mind can possibly believe in this complete idiotic nonsense. An 8th grader can figure out it's a lie. People who relentlessly cling to this theory just refuse to serve God or submit themselves to Him and so they cling to this total fantasy to make themselves feel better. Then they want everybody else to agree with them so they can make themselves feel even better. They come out with even more outrageous claims just pulled out of thin air.
- DrTorch - 05-25-2006 06:53 AM
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:Yup, Carbon Dating is not what you want. There are a variety of methods that are used to date fossils. Another one that is not mentioned is using strata to date the fossils. Each on it's own may not be convincing, but taken as a whole with each giving consistent answers they tell a story that is hard to dispute.
Actually, as a whole they do NOT give consistent answers.
One more reason this theory is bunk.
- Bourgeois_Rage - 05-25-2006 07:05 AM
The last two posts were bunk. Endzone, you obviously have no idea what the theory says, and you can't tell the difference between evolution and development.DrTorch, you claim to want to push good science, but then come up with stuff that is just wrong.
I'm not going to argue this anymore because I've done it before many times and my answer's going to be check out [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/"]Talk Origins[/url]. That has everything that most people would ever want to know about evolution. If you're not going to accept what is said there, there isn't anything I'm going to do to convince you. You've already made up your mind.
And before anyone goes off about how I'm close-minded, when I was told to look into Intelligent Design because I'd really be surprised, I did look into it. I didn't find anything like I was promised. I found a lot of appeals to popularity and authority and probability. What I didn't find was science.
- Endzone2 - 05-25-2006 10:00 AM
Quote:What I didn't find was science.
Haha--as if the "theory" of evolution was science. This isn't science at all. It is more in the same category as a Steven Speilberg cartoon.