Okay now that you are reading here is how I got there. According to people that believe in the religion of evolution; over the course of billions of years animals evolved from single cell organisms to the animals we have today. The problem with this belief is that we have this thing called volcanism and plate tectonics. Every few hundred million years the surface of the earth is replaced. New York one hundred million years ago was on the equator, the planet suffered an ice age that lasted a few million years. Suddenly 65 million years ago there was a sudden explosion of life on this planet. All the species we see today started 65 million years ago. If this evolution thing takes billions of years to happen the planet has not seen billions of years of a stable climate in order for this evolution thing to work.
There have been at least three ages or three separate climate changes on this planet over the last four billion years.
The first age:
The planet was molten and had a average global temperature of five thousand degrees. That is half the temperature of the surface of the Sun. I think you will agree that in this age there would be little chance of any cellular or microbial life of import.
The second age:
The Earth cooled and water suddenly appeared on the planet. Here is where we have the chance for life. The issue is that the atmosphere, the air is made up mostly of Nitrogen, Sulfur dioxide, Carbon dioxide. The water had so much carbon in it that the water was mostly carbonic acid. The animals that showed up then thrived on sulfur and carbon releasing the oxygen. Volcanoes produce the sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide in huge quantities. No species that is alive today could live in this environment. The problem with the animal life that lived in this age was themselves, they polluted the air so much that it became toxic to them killing them off. Well it killed most of all animal life, this life can be found at the bottom of the sea near volcanic vents where the conditions are like that near the surface when they were dominant. These animals are just like the ones we have near the surface but they adapted or “evolved” to the new environment. Crabs, lobsters, clams and other sea life thrive in this new toxic environment.
The third age:
The Earths orbit changed and the wobble of the Earth in conjunction with the volcanic actions caused an ice age that lasted at least two million years. This ice age covered the entire planet to a depth of two miles. This would prohibit most life we currently see on the Earth today. The tectonic plates are still moving around but only 65 to 200 million years ago did the ice melt. The sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide that were the dominant gases in our atmosphere suddenly became trace elements and the released oxygen became the dominant gas. Allow me to be clearer, the atmosphere is roughly 80% nitrogen all other gases make up the other 20% animal life cause that 20% to change depending on the surface conditions. Trees and plants like coral feed on carbon dioxide. The animals and plants that feed on sulfur are mostly gone. The carbon is dwindling now so we are going to start losing trees and plants. The current life on this planet is running out of fuel i.e. carbon dioxide. When that happens we will run into the next age of the Earth. Since the plants feed on carbon dioxide and the animals produce carbon dioxide the plants are consuming more that animals can produce. Because of this the ratio of carbon and oxygen is changing and the atmosphere will become toxic to the plants that sustain us.
What is happening now on our planet is that our oceans are boiling away from the heat of the Sun, and volcanism. This is not new; scientists have proven this back in 1972 with Apollo 17, if memory serves, hydrogen and oxygen is leaving the planet by the metric ton per second. With out that element we will not have water. As the Sun expands the Earth will get hotter, and more and more gases in the atmosphere will escape as it did on the planets Venus and Mars.
With the different ages happening just under every one and a quarter billion years how did this evolution thing happen? Evolution could not happen in less than a billion years according to the people that believe in evolution. For evolution to happen we need a stable environment for billions of years. Science has proven that we have not billions of years of a stable environment. Now if evolutionists wish to claim that it takes millions of years, for all life to evolve into different species then they might have a chance to be correct but scientific evidence does not support this. Man did not become the dominant species till ten or fifteen thousand years ago along with all the most all the species we see today. This happened after the end of the last big ice age. So now we have to have all species evolve in less than a million years.
Think it through and you will see that evolution as stated by Charles Darwin and his supporters and the numbers don’t work.
That was my point Leauki; I wasn't saying that it suddenly would turn into an octopus. I was implying, and intending that it would adapt over time to its enviroment. Like, say...and this is a bit random, an extra set of gills. It's still a fish, but it's adapted/evolved.
Yes, you are correct.
However, what this "fish" is after thousands of generations is anyone's guess. It could be substantially different.
And two descendants of the same fish, both branches having undergone small changes for many generations, can easily be two completely different-looking species, without either branch ever having crossed this mythical "species border".
I just happen to know that you don't understand evolution based on what you write about it. You can hardly tell me that this means "misrepresenting" what you said.
I mentioned nothing of creationism yet you hint that that is where I am coming from as a basis to dismiss my argument. Creationism is not the point of my article the point is that the timelines don't work for Darwinist. That is cold scientific fact. So tell me what part of Darwinism do I miss?
But that doesn't make evolution a religion. It just means that there could be a better theory yet.
This is true to a point. To dismiss all theories because of where they come from is a religious fanatic stance. Rather than one of open mindedness. I will read your views, but when I run into those silly things called facts I stop and look again. I don’t take my position based on my religious beliefs I use science. Instead of coming back with science you call me a creationist.
Nevertheless I have yet to see an article criticising evolution and claiming that "Intelligent Design" is closer to the truth that even makes an effort to represent Darwin's theory correctly.
Here again you bring up intelligent design. I am not discussing ID or creationism I am discussing Darwinism in a scientific context. Don’t try to muddy the waters by brining in theories you have already dismissed and expect me to defend when I am not interested in either one in this context. Reason with me. Show me where what I said is wrong other than because you say so.
That's the point. It's not.
But it is, according to the article I posted.
One is a Creationist fantasy; the other is Darwin's theory.
Fantasy is one word I would agree with but this came from a person supporting Darwin, not a creationist or was I mislead by Aldric?
One hole in Darwin's theory is that IF one species would indeed turn into another, Darwin's theory would be proven wrong (and would henceforth only explain a subset of events we see in nature). The theory would remain useful, just like Newton's theory is today.
You lost me here. if all species had a single starting point, some chemical transformation into life from which others branched off from how does that disprove the theory of Mr. Darwin? How does it disprove creation? Explain it again in simpler terms so I can grasp it.
That's where I think you're getting things crossed; a fish into a cow? More likely the fish would evolve into something that is more adaptive of their changing enviroment.
Not at all. It was a random example to illustrate a point rather than a statement of fact to nail to a wall and examine.
Exactly
Exactly. Just wanted to stop and say Paladin you're nailing things here....you're right about them using the "creationist" card. They use that as a weapon thinking (and saying) we're a bunch of idiots because we do believe in creation even when we don't use creation to debate them. They can't get past that. If we're a creationist, as far as they're concerned, end of discussion even if we don't go there in the first place.
You are both wrong, but Alderic is a bit closer.
Leauki. this is great! I posted exactly word for word what Alderic posted because I copied and pasted it without any comment from me, but some how I am more wrong than Alderic is. This is the bias I mean to point out.
What happens in fact is that the fish always remains a fish, but what a "fish" is changes over many many generations. There is NEVER a point when the "fish" becomes "something else".
Again I like the original author never discussed how the process works yet you seem to know what was meant by me and by the author and by Alderic and then you further assume who is right or wrong as you explain the process. I think you have argued the religion to a point that no matter what is written you will disagree with it and point to creationism as the fault for not understanding the science. Just like the global warming idiots ignore the facts and scream big oil told you lies, as the reason for disagreeing with global warming.
Everything I wrote about Darwinism was based on scientific journals, I don’t even know any creationist or ID web sites, yet you tell me I don’t understand the science. May I submit to you that it is you that do not understand the science?
Look at it with a clear mind. I have read your writings and respect most of them so I know you can do it if you try. Millions if not hundreds of thousands of generations for most species is within the span of humans being the dominant species. Man as done selective breeding and cross breeding of animals to create new species or at least animals that are total dissimilar to the original breeding pair that they have branched out on their own. This is how we got hybrid plants and animals we use today. Yet outside of the lab (controlled environment) we don’t see these changes happening and they should be if Mr. Darwin was even close to being correct.
Once you understand that simple principle, Darwin's theory might still not make sense; but at least you will know what it is and why any "arguments" against it based on the idea that "species borders" cannot be crossed are nonsense.
Once again you throw into the discussion things that were not raised. I never mentioned that it can’t happen I am saying that based on the science that is accepted today it has not happened, and the timelines are so tight it makes it hard if not impossible to have happened. Say for the sake of argument that an asteroid struck the Earth 65 million years ago. It wiped out most of the land animals on the planet, and made the planet unlivable for a million years or so. Then we had an ice age that lasted two million years that covered the planets land surface to a depth of two miles. Then the thawing process began that lasted 20 million years. Then we had a series of little ice ages every 20 to 30 thousand years but each one is shorter lived than the previous one until all the ice had melted off the majority of the land surface. The last ice age ended about 15 thousand years ago. Man and all the plants suddenly sprang up but few if any resemble the plant life that was around 65 million years ago. When did this transformation take place? If it the planet was the same as before only a little colder then the same plants would begin to flourish but we don’t see them. No plant life on the surface means that all herbivores would die of starvation, the carnivores would soon follow. Two million years is a long time to go without a meal. During the last big ice age even the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere came to earth as snow that means the Earths surface temperature was below 400 degrees. All molecular motion stops at that point and all animal life ends. Plant seeds would survive but nothing else. In the oceans the megaladon (big great white shark) would be unaffected because the covering of ice on the ocean would insulate the ocean creatures. Most sea creatures would be unaffected including sea plant life. Okay almost totally unaffected the tropical fish would die off because of the cold unless they happen to be near an underwater volcano. So there is a closed system where the environment would remain static for 2 million years. I can see the theory of evolution happening there but on land it is extremely difficult for this to have occurred. Any animal that could survive -400 degrees would die of heat stroke as soon as the planet warmed up. Oh, almost forgot no air to breath during that time. It was all frozen to the ground until the thaw began. All land animals would have to have evolved in the last 15 to 20 thousand years. Not enough time for evolution to have occurred without our noticing at least one species in flux.
Next is the atmosphere, we went from a nitrogen sulfur atmosphere to a nitrogen carbon atmosphere to a nitrogen oxygen atmosphere. The animals that lived in each time period would have to make quick changes as the atmosphere changed. Animals that live today would not survive 80 million years ago because carbon dioxide would be the second most dominant gas in the atmosphere next to nitrogen. Plants were the dominant species at the time. They transformed the atmosphere from carbon rich to oxygen rich because they breathe in CO2 and exhale oxygen, too many plants and not enough carbon they start to die off and get smaller. While that is happening the land animals would also have to change or evolve. 80 maybe as much as 100 million years ago we had and oxygen rich atmosphere. Then the ice ages started 40 million years later. All evolution stops because there is no food, water, or air to breathe. The thaw happens what is there to start with? Ocean animals? All evolution begins at the point of the thaw. We are back to 15 to 20 thousand years ago.
You see, these are the little things that get in the way of evolution, evolution depends on the world being static, unchanged much or drastically to give the animals time to evolve. Ice ages happen quickly, the last mini ice age started in less than a year it started in the 1500’s and did not end until the 1800’s and it was not until the year 2000 did we get to an average temperature that was the same as the year 1000 and we are staring to cool off again.
You see if you take all science and disciplines you get a bigger picture than if you just study one discipline.
Repeat after me: There is no species border. There is no species border. There is no species border.Once you understand that simple principle, Darwin's theory might still not make sense; but at least you will know what it is and why any "arguments" against it based on the idea that "species borders" cannot be crossed are nonsense.
Repeat after me. paladin never mentioned a species border. paladin never mentioned a species border. Until you mentioned it paladin did not know there was a species border. Please don’t try to muddy the waters with things I never said.
It's easy for me to understand because I have a thing for languages and languages evolve in the same way. No language ever turned into another language, yet English and German are two distinct languages descended from a common ancestor.
Wow, really, so when I speak to Germans, Koreans, Japanese, French, and Spanish citizens every day at work I will keep that in mind. Does that mean that Tagalog and Visayan my wife’s native tongues which is based on Negreto, English, Spanish and Mandarin Chinese might have some similarities? I’m just asking. And this helps you understand evolution? I never made the connection.
Ain't nailin' nothin'. Buncha circular reasoning that proves nada. Not up to Palladin's usual fine standards if ya ask me.
nah! Paladin's doing an awesome job!
Don't know about you guys, but the circular reasoning is making my head spin.
Always the optimist, lol.
~A
Buncha circular reasoning that proves nada
Please explain what you mean. It is not a circular argument or reasoning. It is a continuation of my original article with a little more detail to cover the topics mentioned. Based on the current science of the day there is not enough time for Darwin’s theory to have worked itself out and not have us notice some of it happening outside of a lab. If the theory is correct then we should see evolution taking place or it is not correct because the timeline does not allow us to go back more than 20k years. How is this circular in reasoning?
Self-referencing false assumptions = circular reasoning.
In either case, you really need to cite a source on that because even Pluto manages to have a partially Nitrogen atmosphere when its at its closest to the Sun; which means you are saying the earth was colder than Pluto despite Pluto's closest distance to the Sun being 30 times that of earths distance.
On a more related note, you are partially right about Darwin being proven wrong. However, modern evolutionary theory includes those amendments to Darwin's original theories, and (inseperable from modern biology) is responsible for making these corrections. Calling anyone a Darwinist is a misnomer unless you are actually talking about a person that clings to every single one of Darwin's original ideas in defiance of modern evolutionary theory.
It is obvious that you are a solar system warming denier.
Millions of years ago our Sun was not as warm as it is today. The Earths orbit was not as stable as it is today. Are you aware of the snowball Earth theory? Not widely accepted yet but I believe it explains a lot. The argument with this theory is if the oceans froze over or if there were hot spots that allowed for evaporation. The land was frozen over in either argument, and most if not all the oceans were as well. Anyway, -361.82 °F oxygen freezes -345.75 °F nitrogen freezes. With an elliptical orbit rather than a circular orbit when the planet gets to either end of the orbit it gets very cold and only has a short time to warm up as it nears the sun.
Today Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, gets as cold as -320 °F at night. During the day it gets to 750 °F while Venus has an atmosphere gets much warmer 900°F. Pluto is coming to the end of its summer and is cooling off. In another ten or fifteen years its atmosphere will freeze and fall to the ground as snow and ice till it warms up again in about 150 years. By the way, its atmosphere is Methane not nitrogen. What I mean to say is that Mercury is 26 °F warmer at night than Pluto is during summer in daylight. Source NASA.
That is exactly who this article is for.
Science is a self-correcting field. Anyone that holds to a particular point of a theory when there is EVIDENCE (by the way...do you have any) against it, is not a scientist.
I label this entire thread a troll.
In which field do you want me to start?
Sorry, I don't know what that is. Could you please explain it to me? Anyone?
oh that's just Ock. He likes to come in, cause a bit of trouble, insult you and then leave for a while. It's his MO. He's basically saying anything said here is worthless and useless information. But of course he doesn't like to leave with anything worthy and thought provoking himself.
He just likes to provoke period!
Pot meet kettle.
Wherever you feel like. His point is valid though, lets look at it:
The key word here is self-correcting. Science, true science as driven by its principles, should change over time due to the evidence it finds; It is not static by any means. Example: Evolution - Darwinism may have started the deal, but modern evolutionary theory and what not has changed it, adjusted it, etc.
I think one of the problems in this topic, is that you Paladin, are too stuck on Darwinism. In order to, in my opinion, fully understand the concept of evolution - you cannot JUST look at darwinism. It comes across as a rather ignorant approach, and as if you're trying to straw man the situation.
Be well, ~Alderic
think one of the problems in this topic, is that you Paladin, are too stuck on Darwinism.
That is because it is Darwinism that I take issue with. If you read carefully I don't have an issue with evolution. I see no conflict with evolution and my religious beliefs, I do have problems with people that keep screaming Charles Darwin is what we need to teach in schools when it has been out dated and embarrassingly wrong yet if I take issue with any part I get called names, I get told I am a creationist, (as if that is a bad thing) or that I am ignorant or don’t understand the science. Who cares that astrophysics is a favorite hobby of mine, who cares if I used to teach school, I am still too dumb to understand. The fun part is when I get told what I mean when I write something as if I did not know what I wrote.
I understand science. I don’t understand religious fundamentalism that does not take into account the facts. I see the same fanaticism with global warning. Even when proven wrong you are a plant for big oil instead of a creationist. Same mantra different starting point.
It comes across as a rather ignorant approach, and as if you're trying to straw man the situation.
Not at all, I do like to point out the bias of the opposition, I don’t care if you are liberal or conservative republican or democrat don’t try to force your religious beliefs down my throat without an argument. The facts I stated are just that, facts. I don’t take them out of context and I don’t try to hide points that help the opposition. Some is based on theory because you can’t prove the ideas. Recreate the universe and watch it unfold to prove evolution, the big bang, the proto-planet that slammed into the Earth causing the Moon. We can’t do that so all we have are theories to support arguments. You pick the theories you like and I will pick the ones I like and see who can make their points.
I know KFC, but if you don’t answer him he gets to point that no answer is the same as a win.
We're not talking about religious beleifs, because darwinism and science are not religions/religoius beliefs.
I agree, blind faith in anything is just foolish.
See that's the thing, that is all we can get to - theories. They're really, in my opinion, the ultimate...form, so to speak, of any scientific find. Simply, it's the best explanation we have due to the evidence that is found.
Personally, I am more inclined - thought not completely sold - to believe that the earth was formed as result of the "big bang," so to speak. I'm also inclined to believe that Evolution is the best picture we have for the variations and changes in species/animals, and so on
I actually think that it isn't darwin they teach, so much as they use it as a basis. I know when I went to high school it was the precipice to dive into what we've learned today.
Still wondering where you got the "400 below" figure.
That's odd, because I am not.
okay, the little smiley face was to let you know I was joking but we can deal with humor later.
Perhaps, but you were talking about an ice age that only ended 15 thousand years ago, and suggesting it was roughly 30 times cooler.
No, different ice age. The last ice age was what is termed little ice age. They are cyclic and average 20 to 30K years. The last big ice age ended 20k years ago. Sorry if I jumped around but I have written a bunch of articles on global warming and I am bringing up bits and pieces from them to make my points on evolution because the answer was to someone that had bounced in and out of those discussions.
So, you're suggesting a theoretical previous elliptical orbit cause Earth's temperature to be 200 degrees below the low temperatures on Mars? Short of an impact cataclysmic enough to incinerate all life and evidence of life, how exactly did this elliptical orbit get made more circular?
That part is simple. The impact with the proto planet changed our orbit. From elliptical to circular and the effects did not happen over night. It was also the addition of our Moon that slowed down our rotation and stabilized our wobble. Based on geologic research from NYU our rotation was roughly 12 hour days. The addition of our Moon has slowed this for a time but as the Moon pulls away our planet is speeding up its rotation again I don’t know why because It never interested me to learn that part of the mechanics. And yes, it did wipe out all potential life on the planet. Sort of a do over from its birth. The temperatures differences from other planets are irrelevant because you are using today’s temps and we don’t know what they were back then for the other planets we have only been measuring other planets for the last 30 years or so and have no understanding of their history yet. To suggest that the other planets are static while ours has had wide swings would be hazardous.
It is one of those facts that sticks in my head from my studies. I can’t tell you where or which article I got it from I am thinking National Geographic but can’t be sure. If you wish to discard it because I can’t site the source that is fine. but keep in mind that once the Earth froze over the Sunlight would be reflected off the planet making it colder still. It is estimated that the Sun was 6% weaker at the time than it is today. The Cambrian glaciation is where I got my start on this theory back in the late 60’s I don’t remember where that article came from. At the time we were all going to die from global cooling and the next ice age was only 20 years away if man did not stop polluting the planet.
I have to go to work now and torture terrorists, i mean interrogate, be back soon
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
