"living fossil?" - Page 5 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier All Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 6th, 2007, 07:07 PM   #81
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,467
iTrader: (35)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveKerwin View Post
I usually don't start topics in this forum, but I wanted to talk about a particular fish caught earlier this week. If you want to talk about the fish, then talk about it. If you find I am wrong, then show me, specifically, but don't take it off topic, don't straw man or ad hominem.

So who is stupid? Me for making a logical conclusion about a fish that was claimed to be extinct 300 million years ago or the scientists who were found out wrong but not owning up to it?
Dave, one point that you will not concede is that there is no "right or wrong" in evolution.


In a very similar way, I cannot tell you there is no God. I can tell you that I don't have enough evidence to believe in Him, and that a very influential person named Jesus walked the Earth a few millennia ago.
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old August 6th, 2007, 07:24 PM   #82
Motor Slut
I put the Ick in Dick.
 
Motor Slut's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-10-05
Location: 49963
Posts: 2,411
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post
Cliffs:

If its something you want to believe in, no proof is necessary, its faith.

If you don't want it to be true, you want mountains of proof otherwise.



Its just funny how this works. Not unexpected, though. Christians have fought for over a thousand years to twist things to combat their own irrellevance

Woo Hooo Haggar>Kerwin

I knew you had a functioning brain.

Kerwin I won't even try educating you anymore, you have proven unable to learn the meaning of words and ideas. You state "A black man is a human, a white man is a human, a chinese man is a human, an arab man is a human, a mexican man is a human. There is no non-humans in the equation. Speciation yes, evolution, no. " Just in case someone else is wondering evolution in not always a change in one of the higher classifications. It can be like the birds from lizards, all of life from a 1 cell organism, or simply a bird on 1 island that has adapted (read evolved) to it's environment completely different from the other form of the same bird on another island.
Motor Slut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2007, 10:22 PM   #83
Haggar
Covered in mud...
 
Haggar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Oxford, MI
Posts: 17,606
iTrader: (55)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Motor Slut View Post
Woo Hooo Haggar>Kerwin

I knew you had a functioning brain.
I suprise myself, from time to time.
Haggar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 07:03 AM   #84
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,685
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post
Cliffs:

If its something you want to believe in, no proof is necessary, its faith.

If you don't want it to be true, you want mountains of proof otherwise.



Its just funny how this works. Not unexpected, though. Christians have fought for over a thousand years to twist things to combat their own irrellevance
Hag, you are being completely dishonest.

You enter a thread with cold hard evidence and say that no proof is given.

You make yourself out as a fool.
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 07:07 AM   #85
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,685
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
Dave, one point that you will not concede is that there is no "right or wrong" in evolution.

In a very similar way, I cannot tell you there is no God. I can tell you that I don't have enough evidence to believe in Him, and that a very influential person named Jesus walked the Earth a few millennia ago.
I will concede that I cannot completely disprove evolution any more than I can completely prove creation.

But my only point in this thread is that scientists are not completely honest, and as we have seen, neither are other people, when presented with real evidences.

I am labeled as a mindless brainwashed bible basher who believes a tall tale. Yet many believe that fish wiggled through water that many millions of years and never changed? Further, it was said to be an extinct transitional species, yet it it still alive and well. So how it is, then, that I am the one believing the tall tale? Why is no one saying "oops, I guess we were wrong on that one! Here is a live ceolocanth!!"
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 07:17 AM   #86
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,685
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Motor Slut View Post
Kerwin I won't even try educating you anymore, you have proven unable to learn the meaning of words and ideas. You state "A black man is a human, a white man is a human, a chinese man is a human, an arab man is a human, a mexican man is a human. There is no non-humans in the equation. Speciation yes, evolution, no. " Just in case someone else is wondering evolution in not always a change in one of the higher classifications. It can be like the birds from lizards, all of life from a 1 cell organism, or simply a bird on 1 island that has adapted (read evolved) to it's environment completely different from the other form of the same bird on another island.
Bud, with all due respect, you didn't bring anything to the table. You made a false statement that God and Evolution need each other. I complete disagree and the burden of proof is on you since you said it. Further, I presented you with a responce that you did not comment on. So it is untrue that I am unteachable. If you say something false, then I should not believe it. That does not make me unteachable. Give me something true, and I will be on it. For example, Scot said that I cannot completely disprove evolution. He is right, so I agreed with him. If you were right on what you said, I would have said it, but you were not.

There is a major difference between change WITHIN a species and change FROM a species. Simply because humans have different color skin does NOT support your argument that creationism needs evolution.

The first time you responded you added an attack against the person instead of a weighted argument. This time you have done it again.
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 09:35 AM   #87
95geo
newbie
 
95geo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: dryden
Posts: 5,775
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I hate these dabates but I will add my $.02

with a population so small the genetic makeup can only vary so much, making the evolution virtually non existant in these creatures. I believe that is why it is so similar to its prehistoric ancestors.


http://www.dinofish.com/pop.htm
95geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 11:32 AM   #88
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,685
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95geo View Post
I hate these dabates but I will add my $.02

with a population so small the genetic makeup can only vary so much, making the evolution virtually non existant in these creatures. I believe that is why it is so similar to its prehistoric ancestors.


http://www.dinofish.com/pop.htm
If you hated these debates, you would not put your pennies in its jar :miff:





So for 300-400 MILLION years, population unknown the ENTIRE time, you think it just was the same. You think it is likely that nothing at all happened since the beginning of ocean life until today. Why is it that you do not find this an UNLIKELY scenario? If you just won the lotto, would you bet it on the likelihood or the unlikelihood of this fish simply existing unchanged for HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of years?

If I was a gambling man, and if I was forced to put ALL my money on something, common sense tells me it is unlikely, and my wager would be there. It's fine if you would gamble different, but I don't see why it it sensical to bet otherwise.
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 12:34 PM   #89
95geo
newbie
 
95geo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: dryden
Posts: 5,775
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

There are WAY too many variables to even get into it further, Like CC said, we only know 1 second of 11,000 years.

I was simply bringing up the point you made about the 300 million years between then and now. We don't know when the population declined or if it was even big enough to support evolution at all.

Lots of speculation and assumptions.
95geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 12:51 PM   #90
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,685
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95geo View Post
There are WAY too many variables to even get into it further, Like CC said, we only know 1 second of 11,000 years.

I was simply bringing up the point you made about the 300 million years between then and now. We don't know when the population declined or if it was even big enough to support evolution at all.

Lots of speculation and assumptions.
so why blindly believe that the fish is that old?

if there is no way to know anything, then why disobey common sense?
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 12:55 PM   #91
95geo
newbie
 
95geo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: dryden
Posts: 5,775
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95geo View Post
I hate these dabates

I have added my $.02 and now I am done.
95geo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 01:10 PM   #92
FrankNBrew
Me balls are huge
 
FrankNBrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Warren
Posts: 2,543
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveKerwin View Post
so why blindly believe that the fish is that old?

if there is no way to know anything, then why disobey common sense?
You mention common sense in a thread where you make the assumption that because this species has not evolved other species do not evolve??? How lopsided can an argument get?

I beleive a more common sense approach to this discovery is that the environment under which this species has lived has not had a significant change requiring this fish to adapt. It has been surviving just fine...so no adaptation is necessary.

Humans, on the other hand, have had to adapt over thousands of years to adapt to climate, other species of animals invading their land, moving to different climates, etc.

One sound theory that I belive is that as the ape-type creatues evolved, and the population increased, they had to move to other locations, in search for food, shelter, etc.

This may sound racist, or as if I'm stereotyping, but do you think it's coincidence that the white people tend to be smarter? Or that Africans tend to be more athletic?

Maybe because the Africans had to be strong to hunt for their food? Maybe because the Europeans had to be smart to figure out how to survive cold winters?

If all humans came from one man and woman, would we all not look exacltly alike? Maybe Africans are dark because of their need to be more resistant to the sun? Maybe white people don't need the protection from the sun becuae of the colder climates? They have all evolved to their surroundings...and this didn't happen in 2,000 years.

Last edited by FrankNBrew; August 7th, 2007 at 02:01 PM.
FrankNBrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 05:29 PM   #93
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,685
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankNBrew View Post
You mention common sense in a thread where you make the assumption that because this species has not evolved other species do not evolve??? How lopsided can an argument get?

I beleive a more common sense approach to this discovery is that the environment under which this species has lived has not had a significant change requiring this fish to adapt. It has been surviving just fine...so no adaptation is necessary.

Humans, on the other hand, have had to adapt over thousands of years to adapt to climate, other species of animals invading their land, moving to different climates, etc.

One sound theory that I belive is that as the ape-type creatues evolved, and the population increased, they had to move to other locations, in search for food, shelter, etc.

This may sound racist, or as if I'm stereotyping, but do you think it's coincidence that the white people tend to be smarter? Or that Africans tend to be more athletic?

Maybe because the Africans had to be strong to hunt for their food? Maybe because the Europeans had to be smart to figure out how to survive cold winters?

If all humans came from one man and woman, would we all not look exacltly alike? Maybe Africans are dark because of their need to be more resistant to the sun? Maybe white people don't need the protection from the sun becuae of the colder climates? They have all evolved to their surroundings...and this didn't happen in 2,000 years.
It is the burden of the evolutionist to show transitional species. The ceolocanth is one that was highlighted as a transitional species. It was pictures as this fish who adapted, then died out so looonnng ago, and paved the way for modern day species. The new regime replaced the old.

My sense is not wrong and my argument is not off. This fish was claimed to be a transitional creature from long ago that went extinct, yet it is currently alive and well. So if it is allive and well, what exactly did it transition to? ANYONE? Why was there a need to transition if it was such a hardcore survivor? Further, it never even goes to shallow waters, which is part of the reason they are rarely caught! The whole thing is so off and dishonest it makes me sick. Oh gross, I just puked in my mouth a little bit.

Everyone wants to argue that it just happend to not change one iota, yet they want it to be a transitional creature at the same time. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

In terms of humans, they would have looked similar at first, at least I would think. It is unclear from the Bible if those who were born looked the same or looked different, but genetically we can assume they were similar looking. They moved and lived in all different regions, and if they got uber tan and stayed that way, it must have affected offspring. And if only the strong men enticed the women, then only the strong man's children moved to the next generation of that people group. It would not take very long at all for certain types of people to have lasted, and other types to have died out. Likewise, it does not take that many years to breed a certain type of dog. If mankind was created complete (ie, no need to evolve from a lesser creature), then logically it would not take long to micro-evolve or speciate. (excuse the terms, haha)

But get honest with me on this one issue: If you believe that the ceolocanth did not change in any way in 300 million years, then you have to deny the notion that it was a transitional creature. Reason being that it never had a need to change if it hardcore stayed the same for that length of time.
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 08:15 PM   #94
FrankNBrew
Me balls are huge
 
FrankNBrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Warren
Posts: 2,543
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveKerwin View Post
It is the burden of the evolutionist to show transitional species. The ceolocanth is one that was highlighted as a transitional species. It was pictures as this fish who adapted, then died out so looonnng ago, and paved the way for modern day species. The new regime replaced the old.

My sense is not wrong and my argument is not off. This fish was claimed to be a transitional creature from long ago that went extinct, yet it is currently alive and well. So if it is allive and well, what exactly did it transition to? ANYONE? Why was there a need to transition if it was such a hardcore survivor? Further, it never even goes to shallow waters, which is part of the reason they are rarely caught! The whole thing is so off and dishonest it makes me sick. Oh gross, I just puked in my mouth a little bit.

Everyone wants to argue that it just happend to not change one iota, yet they want it to be a transitional creature at the same time. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

In terms of humans, they would have looked similar at first, at least I would think. It is unclear from the Bible if those who were born looked the same or looked different, but genetically we can assume they were similar looking. They moved and lived in all different regions, and if they got uber tan and stayed that way, it must have affected offspring. And if only the strong men enticed the women, then only the strong man's children moved to the next generation of that people group. It would not take very long at all for certain types of people to have lasted, and other types to have died out. Likewise, it does not take that many years to breed a certain type of dog. If mankind was created complete (ie, no need to evolve from a lesser creature), then logically it would not take long to micro-evolve or speciate. (excuse the terms, haha)

But get honest with me on this one issue: If you believe that the ceolocanth did not change in any way in 300 million years, then you have to deny the notion that it was a transitional creature. Reason being that it never had a need to change if it hardcore stayed the same for that length of time.
OK. I misunderstood your arguement. Your argument is that scientists first labeled the ceolocanth as extinct. Since then 2 of these species were found alive. Since they were wrong about this one, they must be wrong about everything. That's even more rediculous than what I thought you were arguing.

Using that thought process, if you tell your wife you are all out of clean underwear, and she finds a pair hiding under the t-shirts, does that mean everything you say is bullshit?

At first I thought you were a smart guy with strong religious convictions. But the more I read your posts the more I think you need professional help.
FrankNBrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 09:25 PM   #95
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,685
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankNBrew View Post
OK. I misunderstood your arguement. Your argument is that scientists first labeled the ceolocanth as extinct. Since then 2 of these species were found alive. Since they were wrong about this one, they must be wrong about everything. That's even more rediculous than what I thought you were arguing.

Using that thought process, if you tell your wife you are all out of clean underwear, and she finds a pair hiding under the t-shirts, does that mean everything you say is bullshit?

At first I thought you were a smart guy with strong religious convictions. But the more I read your posts the more I think you need professional help.
Please quote me where I said that all of evolution is false because of the mistake I highlighted. You added to what I said. I was VERY specific about ONE creature, and you took it past that.

After you can't find where I said that, please familiarize yourself with this logical fallacy, which you and others enjoy using: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 10:04 PM   #96
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,445
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

I love these creation vs. evolution threads. Theres always plenty of absurdities flying around.

One of my favorites is the notion that an organism can or will evolve because it "needs" to. As if a fish can one day decide "ya know, If I could just evolve some legs I could avoid these perky sharks that keep trying to eat me and I could get up on land and eat some of those tasty flowers". absurd. It's only chance mutation that can cause a certain trait to appear. The need can't create it, only cause it to become more dominant in the species.

A fish can't evolve legs just because it "needs" legs. It will only evolve legs if chance mutation causes some of it's fins so become more leg like, and these more leg like fins makes them more likely to survive and reproduce and give birth to babies with more leg like fins.

Equally absurd is the argument that "if humans evolved from ape, why are there still apes". If you really want to use that argument why not take it all the way back. If all life evolved from single celled organisms why are there still single celled organisms? I believe what happens is that as the population of a given species grows some of the population gets pushed into environments that are less ideally suited to it, but that some will by chance be born with traits that allow it to survive better in the new environment, and they will then pass those traits on to their offspring. This will continue and eventually they have diverged genetically enough to end up as different species.

Last edited by brewmenn; August 7th, 2007 at 10:25 PM.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 10:08 PM   #97
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,685
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Bruce, I agree about the "need" thing.

Let me ask you this: Do you think the ceolocanth can be BOTH over 300 million years old and a transitional species at the same time?
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2007, 10:24 PM   #98
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,445
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveKerwin View Post
Let me ask you this: Do you think the ceolocanth can be BOTH over 300 million years old and a transitional species at the same time?
I find it odd, and contrary to what I thought the theory of evolution suggested, that the ceolocanth, or any other species for that matter, would remain essentially unchanged for 300 million years. I also find the concept of certain species being "transitional species" to be contrary to my understanding of the theory of evolution. I thought the theory of evolution was that all species are evolving all the time, not that a species would stay the same for a while and then "transform" into another.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2007, 07:09 AM   #99
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,685
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I find it odd, and contrary to what I thought the theory of evolution suggested, that the ceolocanth, or any other species for that matter, would remain essentially unchanged for 300 million years. I also find the concept of certain species being "transitional species" to be contrary to my understanding of the theory of evolution. I thought the theory of evolution was that all species are evolving all the time, not that a species would stay the same for a while and then "transform" into another.
I also find it odd and contrary. Thanks for being the first to admit it!

It should raise eyebrows, and it should make people ask questions and re-think things. I am not saying it must change people opinions, but scientists should not be smiling and shouting for joy everytime one of these fish is found, it is more of a thorn in their flesh than a note of victory.
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 8th, 2007, 07:49 AM   #100
FrankNBrew
Me balls are huge
 
FrankNBrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Warren
Posts: 2,543
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveKerwin View Post
Please quote me where I said that all of evolution is false because of the mistake I highlighted. You added to what I said. I was VERY specific about ONE creature, and you took it past that.
You pointed out that scientists found fossils of a certain species. Then, based on evidence, these same scientists made the statement that this species had evolved into another species, and is now extinct. However, recently a couple of these species were discovered alive.

So what's the big deal? They found evidence that points to different variations of this species, indicating some of these have changed...yet some species have not changed. Why is that so hard to believe? How would this information invalidate anything these scientists have mentioned in the past?

I assumed your argument is that scientists made a mistake, so they must be wrong about a lot of stuff...specifically evolution.

If that is not your point, then what is?
FrankNBrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:16 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.31874 seconds with 80 queries