Question about Noah.

[PostmodernProph]

well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......

is that a long winded way of saying that you aren't smart enough to see the obvious?.....if something is a new species, no thing was ever that species before....if its parent was not of a different species, then its parent would have been the first of that new species instead.......

Actually, the definition I gave you is the accurate description of evolution.

New species don't appear "like magic' which is your only reference as a YEC'ist. Speciation is a long transitional process with both successes and utter dead ends. The problem you have understanding this are the geologic time frames for speciation to occur, where your bible tales are in timescales of a few thousand years.

there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....

You're appalling lack of a science vocabulary causes you to make these kinds of errors. Such training at your fundie madrassah would also be an issue.

In the realm of the relevant sciences, such as paleontology, there are transitional species which don't conform to your naive and ignorant view of new species springing forth, fully formed.

You should attempt to understand something about evolutionary processes before promoting your science-loathing agenda.

again....there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....

It's remarkable that you would choose to promote your ignorance of science with such aplomb in a public discussion forum.

I'd have thought that you might attempt to actually understand some pretty basic terms before arguing against what you don't understand. Had you done so, you might have noticed that "transitional" precedes the noun "species" in the term transitional species.

A.... wait for it.... here it comes... Transitional Species Is one that shares characteristics common to different lineages.

That's why it's called transitional.




Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

again....there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

I certainly won't be asking someone who thinks being a Christian hinges on believing in a 6000 year old earth....by that standard, even Hollie would be a Christian.......

You have difficulty with a consistent argument so it's not surprising that you're perpetually befuddled that literal interpretations of biblical tales and fables such as supernatural creations of man and women and magical Arks certainly identified you as a YEC'ist.

no, dumbfuck.....it does not......the fact you've been pretending I am a young earther for the last four months makes me nothing other than the target of your lies.......

It seems a bit dishonest on your part to hold a literalist view of supernatural gardens, magical Arks, talking snakes, etc., and deny you're a YEC'ist.

and its a whole lot dishonest of you to claim I hold a literalist view......

When you hold a literalist view, you can be identified as a literalist.

That should be simple enough for you.

except.....I don't.....that really ***** up your "logic"......

 

[PostmodernProph]

If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.

well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......

I will mark this down as you not understanding the premise of evolution.

I think its rather obvious......do you people never consider the consequences of what it is you claim to believe?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

I would like the human being and any other creationist to see this series of videos.



I have links to all 17 videos.

Is this how the evolutionizer wins the debate. With bad video?

Actually watch all 17 videos. Every single question about Evolution and the story of Noah will be answered for you.

I don't debate videos....they suck at responding to my criticism......if you want to enlighten us, type something into a post......

 

[Tuatara]

If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.

well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......

I will mark this down as you not understanding the premise of evolution.

I think its rather obvious......do you people never consider the consequences of what it is you claim to believe?......

Please explain what you mean.

 

[Tuatara]

I would like the human being and any other creationist to see this series of videos.



I have links to all 17 videos.

Is this how the evolutionizer wins the debate. With bad video?

Actually watch all 17 videos. Every single question about Evolution and the story of Noah will be answered for you.

I don't debate videos....they suck at responding to my criticism......if you want to enlighten us, type something into a post......

But we are dealinh with a whole lot of information here. Typing it out would take 50 full pages or more and would kill the the thread. I am also not the most eloquent at verbalizing my thoughts. Also it wouldn't kill you to learn something.

 

[indiajo]

[

again....there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....

You seem to have not the slightest ide what a species is.
Learn about the biological nomenclatura.

 

[Taz]

Your link said that there were other people alive during Adam and Eve's time. Like, aside from their children, how is that possible? Stumped again?

no, my link said there were other people alive during the genetic-Adam and the genetic-Eve's time.......that has nothing at all to do with the biblical Adam and the biblical Eve.......you're a bit slow on this, aren't you.....

So there was no garden of eden and no adam and eve made by god and who got thrown out of eden? I thought we were discussing bible related stuff. Not evolution.

dude......look at the title of the thread......we are not talking about the garden of eden.....get back on track.......

At least you know you're a coward.

???....I'm a coward because you're confused?......

You're a coward for not answering simple questions and just dodging them non-stop.
Do you believe in the biblical Adam and Eve? It appears not as you talk only about Mito A & E. You've also shown you don't believe in the worldwide flood as described in the bible. And you believe in evolution. Please return your Christian card as you aren't even one anyways.

 

[Taz]

Speaking of simple, why have we never been able to produce the strands of nucleotides that form a DNA molecule in primordial soup? We have never been able to recreate spontaneous generation. For one thing, in order for it to happen the earth had to be an oxygen free environment. It's abundant in oxygen. No matter how science tries to replicate primordial soup spontaneous life, all they get is tar.
Who designed the genetic code that "writes" the information the nucleotides program into DNA and RNA? The information that they can't deny is there. There is a cause attached to it. It performs with a cause, it has an agenda. Darwin didn't know that. He believed that life was un-caused. An accident, random chance. We know better now, but what is crushing to science is they know, because of thermal-dynamics, if there is a cause there is a causer. Like you, they would rather that not be the case. Science says that is the case.

Early earth had no oxygen, which was a by-product of the first photosynthesising creatures.

 

[PostmodernProph]

If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.

well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......

I will mark this down as you not understanding the premise of evolution.

I think its rather obvious......do you people never consider the consequences of what it is you claim to believe?......

Please explain what you mean.

its not hard to figure out, but okay.......you believe that human beings evolved from some lesser creature.....at some point in time there had to be that creature which first met all the qualifications of a new species.....the first homo sapien........that should be obvious.......equally obvious would be that its parent would not have the qualifications of that new species.....because if it did, IT would have been the first homo sapien instead of its child.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

I would like the human being and any other creationist to see this series of videos.



I have links to all 17 videos.

Is this how the evolutionizer wins the debate. With bad video?

Actually watch all 17 videos. Every single question about Evolution and the story of Noah will be answered for you.

I don't debate videos....they suck at responding to my criticism......if you want to enlighten us, type something into a post......

But we are dealinh with a whole lot of information here. Typing it out would take 50 full pages or more and would kill the the thread. I am also not the most eloquent at verbalizing my thoughts. Also it wouldn't kill you to learn something.

and when I tell you that something in the video I wasted time on was wrong would you be able to verbalize your response or would I have to track down the guy in the video and tell HIM where he went wrong?......why should I have to invest the time to listen to an argument you can't be bothered to type, type out what I find is wrong, type out here the explanation of why it is wrong and read you respond by saying "oh, you think you're smarter than the guy in the video?"........

 

[Hollie]

If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.

well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......

I will mark this down as you not understanding the premise of evolution.

I think its rather obvious......do you people never consider the consequences of what it is you claim to believe?......

Please explain what you mean.

its not hard to figure out, but okay.......you believe that human beings evolved from some lesser creature.....at some point in time there had to be that creature which first met all the qualifications of a new species.....the first homo sapien........that should be obvious.......equally obvious would be that its parent would not have the qualifications of that new species.....because if it did, IT would have been the first homo sapien instead of its child.......

It's as though you're convinced ignorance is a virtue.

 

[PostmodernProph]

no, my link said there were other people alive during the genetic-Adam and the genetic-Eve's time.......that has nothing at all to do with the biblical Adam and the biblical Eve.......you're a bit slow on this, aren't you.....

So there was no garden of eden and no adam and eve made by god and who got thrown out of eden? I thought we were discussing bible related stuff. Not evolution.

dude......look at the title of the thread......we are not talking about the garden of eden.....get back on track.......

At least you know you're a coward.

???....I'm a coward because you're confused?......

You're a coward for not answering simple questions and just dodging them non-stop.
Do you believe in the biblical Adam and Eve? It appears not as you talk only about Mito A & E. You've also shown you don't believe in the worldwide flood as described in the bible. And you believe in evolution. Please return your Christian card as you aren't even one anyways.

listen, dumbfuck......I didn't respond about the biblical Adam and Eve because they have nothing to do with the discussion......ignoring your attempts at diversion, even if they happened because you weren't bright enough to realize they had nothing to do with the discussion doesn't make me a coward.......now, I'm not sure where you get your definition of Christian, but it obviously wasn't from a Bible.......you don't hand out the "Christian cards" and you don't get to ask for them back......

now, to stifle your whining for irrelevant answers....I believe there was a first man and a first woman......I believe they were created by God.......I believe they were disobedient.....I believe that a flood killed all except one family......I believe that green butterflies evolved from yellow butterflies and that evolution explains why we have 37k different kinds of beetle......I do not believe that the universe exists or that life crawled out of a mud puddle because of random shit happening randomly.......I do not believe that human beings and dung beetles have a common ancestor.......

I believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate and he gave himself in sacrifice to atone for my disobedience and that therefore I will spend eternity in a very happy place......

so, do I get to keep my "Christian card" or do I not meet the approval of the atheist in charge of the pearly gates?........

 

[PostmodernProph]

well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......

I will mark this down as you not understanding the premise of evolution.

I think its rather obvious......do you people never consider the consequences of what it is you claim to believe?......

Please explain what you mean.

its not hard to figure out, but okay.......you believe that human beings evolved from some lesser creature.....at some point in time there had to be that creature which first met all the qualifications of a new species.....the first homo sapien........that should be obvious.......equally obvious would be that its parent would not have the qualifications of that new species.....because if it did, IT would have been the first homo sapien instead of its child.......

It's as though you're convinced ignorance is a virtue.

and yet, despite your repeated complaints, you have not yet made any attempt to point out what is wrong with my logic.......and I'm willing to bet you never will......

 

[Taz]

So there was no garden of eden and no adam and eve made by god and who got thrown out of eden? I thought we were discussing bible related stuff. Not evolution.

dude......look at the title of the thread......we are not talking about the garden of eden.....get back on track.......

At least you know you're a coward.

???....I'm a coward because you're confused?......

You're a coward for not answering simple questions and just dodging them non-stop.
Do you believe in the biblical Adam and Eve? It appears not as you talk only about Mito A & E. You've also shown you don't believe in the worldwide flood as described in the bible. And you believe in evolution. Please return your Christian card as you aren't even one anyways.

listen, dumbfuck......I didn't respond about the biblical Adam and Eve because they have nothing to do with the discussion......ignoring your attempts at diversion, even if they happened because you weren't bright enough to realize they had nothing to do with the discussion doesn't make me a coward.......now, I'm not sure where you get your definition of Christian, but it obviously wasn't from a Bible.......you don't hand out the "Christian cards" and you don't get to ask for them back......

now, to stifle your whining for irrelevant answers....I believe there was a first man and a first woman......I believe they were created by God.......I believe they were disobedient.....I believe that a flood killed all except one family......I believe that green butterflies evolved from yellow butterflies and that evolution explains why we have 37k different kinds of beetle......I do not believe that the universe exists or that life crawled out of a mud puddle because of random shit happening randomly.......I do not believe that human beings and dung beetles have a common ancestor.......

I believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate and he gave himself in sacrifice to atone for my disobedience that that therefore I will spend eternity in a very happy place......

so, do I get to keep my "Christian card" or do I not meet the approval of the atheist in charge of the pearly gates?........

Sure it has to do with this thread in general, which is exploring the stories in the bible to figure out if they're true or not. So you don't believe in the earliest fossils that show life existed billions of years ago (which is based on observable facts), but you believe that an invisible superbeing in another dimension that poofed everything into existence, and this without any observable proof whatsoever, who will punish you if you don't follow some random book written by men? Yeah, you get to keep your Christian card.

 

[Hollie]

I will mark this down as you not understanding the premise of evolution.

I think its rather obvious......do you people never consider the consequences of what it is you claim to believe?......

Please explain what you mean.

its not hard to figure out, but okay.......you believe that human beings evolved from some lesser creature.....at some point in time there had to be that creature which first met all the qualifications of a new species.....the first homo sapien........that should be obvious.......equally obvious would be that its parent would not have the qualifications of that new species.....because if it did, IT would have been the first homo sapien instead of its child.......

It's as though you're convinced ignorance is a virtue.

and yet, despite your repeated complaints, you have not yet made any attempt to point out what is wrong with my logic.......and I'm willing to bet you never will......

Supernaturalism is not a logical argument.

What's comical is that you can't offer a single, supportable bit of evidence for your personal opinions forged from the ignorance of religious fundamentalism.

Now would be a good time to explain your logic of talking snakes.

 

[PostmodernProph]

dude......look at the title of the thread......we are not talking about the garden of eden.....get back on track.......

At least you know you're a coward.

???....I'm a coward because you're confused?......

You're a coward for not answering simple questions and just dodging them non-stop.
Do you believe in the biblical Adam and Eve? It appears not as you talk only about Mito A & E. You've also shown you don't believe in the worldwide flood as described in the bible. And you believe in evolution. Please return your Christian card as you aren't even one anyways.

listen, dumbfuck......I didn't respond about the biblical Adam and Eve because they have nothing to do with the discussion......ignoring your attempts at diversion, even if they happened because you weren't bright enough to realize they had nothing to do with the discussion doesn't make me a coward.......now, I'm not sure where you get your definition of Christian, but it obviously wasn't from a Bible.......you don't hand out the "Christian cards" and you don't get to ask for them back......

now, to stifle your whining for irrelevant answers....I believe there was a first man and a first woman......I believe they were created by God.......I believe they were disobedient.....I believe that a flood killed all except one family......I believe that green butterflies evolved from yellow butterflies and that evolution explains why we have 37k different kinds of beetle......I do not believe that the universe exists or that life crawled out of a mud puddle because of random shit happening randomly.......I do not believe that human beings and dung beetles have a common ancestor.......

I believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate and he gave himself in sacrifice to atone for my disobedience that that therefore I will spend eternity in a very happy place......

so, do I get to keep my "Christian card" or do I not meet the approval of the atheist in charge of the pearly gates?........

Sure it has to do with this thread in general, which is exploring the stories in the bible to figure out if they're true or not. So you don't believe in the earliest fossils that show life existed billions of years ago (which is based on observable facts), but you believe that an invisible superbeing in another dimension that poofed everything into existence, and this without any observable proof whatsoever, who will punish you if you don't follow some random book written by men? Yeah, you get to keep your Christian card.

you know.....if you forget what the thread is about you could always read the title for a reminder......I believe fossils exist......I believe they show creatures such as that existed......that doesn't mean I have to believe that fossil A is an ancestor of fossil B (which obviously is NOT an observable fact)........

 

[peach174]

again....there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....

It's remarkable that you would choose to promote your ignorance of science with such aplomb in a public discussion forum.

I'd have thought that you might attempt to actually understand some pretty basic terms before arguing against what you don't understand. Had you done so, you might have noticed that "transitional" precedes the noun "species" in the term transitional species.

A.... wait for it.... here it comes... Transitional Species Is one that shares characteristics common to different lineages.

That's why it's called transitional.




Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

And they still have not found actual links.
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor. They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase

Who was the author of your wiki article? Too difficult to find a science journal for information on science?

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ Part 1A

Why do gaps exist? (or seem to exist)
Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage. Many laypeople even have the (incorrect) impression that the situation is even worse, and that there are no known transitions at all. Why are there still gaps? And why do many people think that there are even more gaps than there really are?
Stratigraphic gaps
The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.
Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years. Luckily, this is enough to record most episodes of evolutionary change (provided that they occurred at Clark's Fork Basin and not somewhere else), though it misses the most rapid evolutionary bursts. In general, in order to document transitions between species, you specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (e.g. every 20,000-80,000 years). If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species. If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved. And so on. These are rough estimates (from Gingerich, 1976, 1980) but should give an idea of the completeness required.
Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened.

Here is a list of many to look up.
Transitional fossils bibliography

So yes. You agree there are transitional species.

That is not what these scientists are saying.
No I don't agree, I agree with these scientists that transitional species has gaps.

 

[Hollie]

At least you know you're a coward.

???....I'm a coward because you're confused?......

You're a coward for not answering simple questions and just dodging them non-stop.
Do you believe in the biblical Adam and Eve? It appears not as you talk only about Mito A & E. You've also shown you don't believe in the worldwide flood as described in the bible. And you believe in evolution. Please return your Christian card as you aren't even one anyways.

listen, dumbfuck......I didn't respond about the biblical Adam and Eve because they have nothing to do with the discussion......ignoring your attempts at diversion, even if they happened because you weren't bright enough to realize they had nothing to do with the discussion doesn't make me a coward.......now, I'm not sure where you get your definition of Christian, but it obviously wasn't from a Bible.......you don't hand out the "Christian cards" and you don't get to ask for them back......

now, to stifle your whining for irrelevant answers....I believe there was a first man and a first woman......I believe they were created by God.......I believe they were disobedient.....I believe that a flood killed all except one family......I believe that green butterflies evolved from yellow butterflies and that evolution explains why we have 37k different kinds of beetle......I do not believe that the universe exists or that life crawled out of a mud puddle because of random shit happening randomly.......I do not believe that human beings and dung beetles have a common ancestor.......

I believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate and he gave himself in sacrifice to atone for my disobedience that that therefore I will spend eternity in a very happy place......

so, do I get to keep my "Christian card" or do I not meet the approval of the atheist in charge of the pearly gates?........

Sure it has to do with this thread in general, which is exploring the stories in the bible to figure out if they're true or not. So you don't believe in the earliest fossils that show life existed billions of years ago (which is based on observable facts), but you believe that an invisible superbeing in another dimension that poofed everything into existence, and this without any observable proof whatsoever, who will punish you if you don't follow some random book written by men? Yeah, you get to keep your Christian card.

you know.....if you forget what the thread is about you could always read the title for a reminder......I believe fossils exist......I believe they show creatures such as that existed......that doesn't mean I have to believe that fossil A is an ancestor of fossil B (which obviously is NOT an observable fact)........

How could those fossils have existed if the planet is only 6,000 years old?

 

[PostmodernProph]

I think its rather obvious......do you people never consider the consequences of what it is you claim to believe?......

Please explain what you mean.

its not hard to figure out, but okay.......you believe that human beings evolved from some lesser creature.....at some point in time there had to be that creature which first met all the qualifications of a new species.....the first homo sapien........that should be obvious.......equally obvious would be that its parent would not have the qualifications of that new species.....because if it did, IT would have been the first homo sapien instead of its child.......

It's as though you're convinced ignorance is a virtue.

and yet, despite your repeated complaints, you have not yet made any attempt to point out what is wrong with my logic.......and I'm willing to bet you never will......

Supernaturalism is not a logical argument.

What's comical is that you can't offer a single, supportable bit of evidence for your personal opinions forged from the ignorance of religious fundamentalism.

Now would be a good time to explain your logic of talking snakes.

/grins.....I would gloat about winning the bet, but it was too easy a wager......you would never, ever attempt to actually engage in a debate on anything.....