Bill Nye (The Science Guy) Big Times Kansas Rubes and high fives Darwin

[p1k3]

Fossilization is a pretty rare event. Even 1000 years from now after humans have dug up millions of more fossils we probably still won't have them all. 

WE'RE JUST NOT DIGGING HARD ENOUGH!

In a way, yes. Darwin knew damn well he didn't have enough fossils as stated above. Now were about 150 years later and we still don't, although we have quite a lot more and a much better understanding of evolution.

[ChiComCat]

So we've eliminated:

1.  Creationism - proven false, less than zero evidence;
2.  Evolution - giraffes!

So what do we have left?

Looks like it must be flying spaghetti monster

[Dugout DickStone]

The devil sure did create a lot of giraffe ancestors. 

[Fldermaus]

Do you guys know what a transitional form is?

Where are these transitional forms?  Even Darwin admits evolution needs them.  And if they're not there then evolution must be false.  Humans have discovered tons of dinosaur bones, but no transitional bones.  Why's that?  they don't exist.

Archaeopteryx isn't a transitional form because it had FULLY FORMED parts that were reptilian and avian. 

The giraffe itself disproves evolution.  Look it up.  If evolution were true then there is no way giraffes would be here.

"No transitional forms" = they think evolution happens when a monkey is born as a monkey, then turns into a human later in life.

[Fldermaus]

If evolution is false, then why is RoundUp being phased out as an herbicide? Why will penicillin become basically useless within my lifetime? Why are humans taller, stronger and living longer than ever before?

2 excellent examples of evolution, + one secular trend due to improved nutrition & medicine [not evolution].

[Rage Against the McKee]

What I don't understand is how someone can disbelieve evolution.  Can't wrap my head around that.  There's heaps of empirical, concrete evidence that you simply have to ignore or explain away by subsuming it to otherwordly, mystical explanations (e.g. the devil planted fossils).  Yeah, I don't get these people.

Fear of hell has to be a strong factor here.

[Fldermaus]

So although the debate did not start out as science versus religion, that is how many people now see it. Paradoxically, this is not how many scientists see it. In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over 45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as doubters or agnostics. This ratio of believers to non-believers had not changed in 80 years. Should anybody be surprised?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/sep/04/science.research

"Belief in God" is not the same as belief in Christianity or the truth of the Bible. 

[Stevesie60]

So although the debate did not start out as science versus religion, that is how many people now see it. Paradoxically, this is not how many scientists see it. In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over 45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as doubters or agnostics. This ratio of believers to non-believers had not changed in 80 years. Should anybody be surprised?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/sep/04/science.research

"Belief in God" is not the same as belief in Christianity or the truth of the Bible. 

Where did I say it was?

[8manpick]

So although the debate did not start out as science versus religion, that is how many people now see it. Paradoxically, this is not how many scientists see it. In the US, according to a survey published in Nature in 1997, four out of 10 scientists believe in God. Just over 45% said they did not believe, and 14.5% described themselves as doubters or agnostics. This ratio of believers to non-believers had not changed in 80 years. Should anybody be surprised?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/sep/04/science.research

"Belief in God" is not the same as belief in Christianity or the truth of the Bible. 

Where did I say it was?

Don't think it was meant as a contradiction Jake, just pointing out something that you didn't mention.

[wes mantooth]

If this thread can't smoke out tannoudji, nothing will

[Stevesie60]

If this thread can't smoke out tannoudji, nothing will

Who needs tannoudji when we have FSD?

[ben ji]

Do you guys know what a transitional form is?

From our friends at wikipedia:

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known.  Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.  He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.  Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.  Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now considered to be abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils.  Specific examples include humans and other primates, tetrapods and fish, and birds and dinosaurs.

So the hole in the theory is that not all life forms ever left fossil records/not all fossils have been unearthed yet?   

There are more holes.  Get to them later.

Where are these transitional forms?  Even Darwin admits evolution needs them.  And if they're not there then evolution must be false.  Humans have discovered tons of dinosaur bones, but no transitional bones.  Why's that?  they don't exist.

Archaeopteryx isn't a transitional form because it had FULLY FORMED parts that were reptilian and avian. 

The giraffe itself disproves evolution.  Look it up.  If evolution were true then there is no way giraffes would be here.

If evolution is false, then why is RoundUp being phased out as an herbicide? Why will penicillin become basically useless within my lifetime? Why are humans taller, stronger and living longer than ever before?

Your first two examples are good but you need to go sit in the corner after throwing in that last one, it has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with medical advances and nutrition. If anything humans are de-evolving?(Not sure about the correct term here). Being smarter/taller/wealthier etc no longer guarantee your offspring a better chance of surviving childhood and reproducing then your dumb/shorter/poor neighbor's kids.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Do you guys know what a transitional form is?

From our friends at wikipedia:

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known.  Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.  He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.  Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.  Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now considered to be abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils.  Specific examples include humans and other primates, tetrapods and fish, and birds and dinosaurs.

So the hole in the theory is that not all life forms ever left fossil records/not all fossils have been unearthed yet?   

There are more holes.  Get to them later.

Where are these transitional forms?  Even Darwin admits evolution needs them.  And if they're not there then evolution must be false.  Humans have discovered tons of dinosaur bones, but no transitional bones.  Why's that?  they don't exist.

Archaeopteryx isn't a transitional form because it had FULLY FORMED parts that were reptilian and avian. 

The giraffe itself disproves evolution.  Look it up.  If evolution were true then there is no way giraffes would be here.

If evolution is false, then why is RoundUp being phased out as an herbicide? Why will penicillin become basically useless within my lifetime? Why are humans taller, stronger and living longer than ever before?

Your first two examples are good but you need to go sit in the corner after throwing in that last one, it has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with medical advances and nutrition. If anything humans are de-evolving?(Not sure about the correct term here). Being smarter/taller/wealthier etc no longer guarantee your offspring a better chance of surviving childhood and reproducing then your dumb/shorter/poor neighbor's kids.

Smart people are more likely to have smart offspring that will live longer, better lives, but they don't have as many kids.

[MeatSauce]

Do you guys know what a transitional form is?

From our friends at wikipedia:

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known.  Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.  He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.  Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.  Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now considered to be abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils.  Specific examples include humans and other primates, tetrapods and fish, and birds and dinosaurs.

So the hole in the theory is that not all life forms ever left fossil records/not all fossils have been unearthed yet?   

There are more holes.  Get to them later.

Where are these transitional forms?  Even Darwin admits evolution needs them.  And if they're not there then evolution must be false.  Humans have discovered tons of dinosaur bones, but no transitional bones.  Why's that?  they don't exist.

Archaeopteryx isn't a transitional form because it had FULLY FORMED parts that were reptilian and avian. 

The giraffe itself disproves evolution.  Look it up.  If evolution were true then there is no way giraffes would be here.

If evolution is false, then why is RoundUp being phased out as an herbicide? Why will penicillin become basically useless within my lifetime? Why are humans taller, stronger and living longer than ever before?

Your first two examples are good but you need to go sit in the corner after throwing in that last one, it has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with medical advances and nutrition. If anything humans are de-evolving?(Not sure about the correct term here). Being smarter/taller/wealthier etc no longer guarantee your offspring a better chance of surviving childhood and reproducing then your dumb/shorter/poor neighbor's kids.

Which probably has something to do with the human brain shrinking and functioning more and more efficiently with each new generation. Next.

[fun muffin]

NOT JUST GIRAFFES


One of the most bizarre of all fish is the anglerfish, a deep-water fish which can live more than a mile under the surface. This strange creature has a structure growing out of its head that resembles a fishing rod. On the very tip of this “rod” is a worm-like structure that has an incredible function: it can produce light! This wonderful light-producing organ is held close to the mouth of the anglerfish. Smaller fish are attracted to the light, thinking that it is a food source. When they try to eat the “food,” they become the next meal of the hungry anglerfish!

The anglerfish’s light poses a problem for evolution. Evolutionists might attempt to state that it evolved gradually over long periods of time. Since the anglerfish relies so heavily on its fishing system for food, however, an underdeveloped or non-functioning light would probably lead to the fish’s starvation. The light itself is extremely complex. Involving the compound Luciferin and the enzyme Luciferase, it is remarkable in that it produces no heat[13]. Tireless research has been spent on these two substances (Luc-iferase was found to contain more than 1000 proteins!), but still no one knows for certain how the light is made[14].

Another interesting part of the anglerfish is its body structure. It is specially built to withstand the immense pressures it encounters in the depths of the ocean. The anglerfish lives where the pressure is around 2000 pounds per square inch, but it suffers no damage; it was designed to live in this environment. This prevents a regular fish from evolving into an anglerfish; if it somehow sank into the depths to begin its evolution, it would be crushed! In short, the anglerfish could not have evolved from another animal; it was an anglerfish from the start.

[Trim]

Do you guys know what a transitional form is?

From our friends at wikipedia:

In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known.  Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory", but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.  He noted the limited collections available at that time, but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection.  Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.  Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now considered to be abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, much of it in the form of transitional fossils.  Specific examples include humans and other primates, tetrapods and fish, and birds and dinosaurs.

So the hole in the theory is that not all life forms ever left fossil records/not all fossils have been unearthed yet?   

There are more holes.  Get to them later.

Where are these transitional forms?  Even Darwin admits evolution needs them.  And if they're not there then evolution must be false.  Humans have discovered tons of dinosaur bones, but no transitional bones.  Why's that?  they don't exist.

Archaeopteryx isn't a transitional form because it had FULLY FORMED parts that were reptilian and avian. 

The giraffe itself disproves evolution.  Look it up.  If evolution were true then there is no way giraffes would be here.

If evolution is false, then why is RoundUp being phased out as an herbicide? Why will penicillin become basically useless within my lifetime? Why are humans taller, stronger and living longer than ever before?

Your first two examples are good but you need to go sit in the corner after throwing in that last one, it has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with medical advances and nutrition. If anything humans are de-evolving?(Not sure about the correct term here). Being smarter/taller/wealthier etc no longer guarantee your offspring a better chance of surviving childhood and reproducing then your dumb/shorter/poor neighbor's kids.

Hey, potato potahto, you know?

[MeatSauce]

NOT JUST GIRAFFES


One of the most bizarre of all fish is the anglerfish, a deep-water fish which can live more than a mile under the surface. This strange creature has a structure growing out of its head that resembles a fishing rod. On the very tip of this “rod” is a worm-like structure that has an incredible function: it can produce light! This wonderful light-producing organ is held close to the mouth of the anglerfish. Smaller fish are attracted to the light, thinking that it is a food source. When they try to eat the “food,” they become the next meal of the hungry anglerfish!

The anglerfish’s light poses a problem for evolution. Evolutionists might attempt to state that it evolved gradually over long periods of time. Since the anglerfish relies so heavily on its fishing system for food, however, an underdeveloped or non-functioning light would probably lead to the fish’s starvation. The light itself is extremely complex. Involving the compound Luciferin and the enzyme Luciferase, it is remarkable in that it produces no heat[13]. Tireless research has been spent on these two substances (Luc-iferase was found to contain more than 1000 proteins!), but still no one knows for certain how the light is made[14].

Another interesting part of the anglerfish is its body structure. It is specially built to withstand the immense pressures it encounters in the depths of the ocean. The anglerfish lives where the pressure is around 2000 pounds per square inch, but it suffers no damage; it was designed to live in this environment. This prevents a regular fish from evolving into an anglerfish; if it somehow sank into the depths to begin its evolution, it would be crushed! In short, the anglerfish could not have evolved from another animal; it was an anglerfish from the start.

oh my....

http://www.cfnews.org/Denk-ID.htm

"Editor’s Note: The following was written by a Grade 12 Catholic home-schooled student who has nurtured a keen interest in biology from his early years"

[fun muffin]

fun muffin, what's your theory? (not baiting, I won't come back with a "you dumbass" post, seriously curious)

I believe that simple logic points to a creator.

[fun muffin]

oh my....

http://www.cfnews.org/Denk-ID.htm

"Editor’s Note: The following was written by a Grade 12 Catholic home-schooled student who has nurtured a keen interest in biology from his early years"

yea i saw that before quoting.  feel free to point out any lies in it. 

also i'm not catholic

[Rage Against the McKee]

NOT JUST GIRAFFES


One of the most bizarre of all fish is the anglerfish, a deep-water fish which can live more than a mile under the surface. This strange creature has a structure growing out of its head that resembles a fishing rod. On the very tip of this “rod” is a worm-like structure that has an incredible function: it can produce light! This wonderful light-producing organ is held close to the mouth of the anglerfish. Smaller fish are attracted to the light, thinking that it is a food source. When they try to eat the “food,” they become the next meal of the hungry anglerfish!

The anglerfish’s light poses a problem for evolution. Evolutionists might attempt to state that it evolved gradually over long periods of time. Since the anglerfish relies so heavily on its fishing system for food, however, an underdeveloped or non-functioning light would probably lead to the fish’s starvation. The light itself is extremely complex. Involving the compound Luciferin and the enzyme Luciferase, it is remarkable in that it produces no heat[13]. Tireless research has been spent on these two substances (Luc-iferase was found to contain more than 1000 proteins!), but still no one knows for certain how the light is made[14].

Another interesting part of the anglerfish is its body structure. It is specially built to withstand the immense pressures it encounters in the depths of the ocean. The anglerfish lives where the pressure is around 2000 pounds per square inch, but it suffers no damage; it was designed to live in this environment. This prevents a regular fish from evolving into an anglerfish; if it somehow sank into the depths to begin its evolution, it would be crushed! In short, the anglerfish could not have evolved from another animal; it was an anglerfish from the start.

If no other fish could survive that pressure to evolve into an anglerfish, then what are these fish that you say the anglerfish is eating?

[michigancat]

At the end of the day, people are going to believe what they WANT to believe. The thing about deism/atheism is that everyone is biased. Some people want to believe there is a purpose to life, some don't. There is plenty of evidence for both sides. No one is going to have any trouble finding a reason (or lots of reasons) to believe what they want to believe. This is noted in the divide of the people who research evolution. 40% believe in a God, 45% do not. (These numbers have remained pretty constant over the years). They are the ones who have all of the evidence in front of them, and it's still split fairly evenly. So if anyone in this thread is trying to change someone else's worldview, it's not going to work.

I disagree. I've had opinions influenced by message boards several times when either presented with new facts or perspectives. Your post reads like an excuse for people to live with their heads in the sand.

[fun muffin]

Also created to exist down there.   

just skim through this   http://www.rae.org/pdf/revev5.pdf



i'm never going to claim to be an expert on this.  i'm neither a scientist or a pastor. 

but i'm not going to stick my head in the sand and believe that evolution is true because some scientists claim it is; because there are such glaring holes in evolution.

[MeatSauce]

Also created to exist down there.   

just skim through this   http://www.rae.org/pdf/revev5.pdf



i'm never going to claim to be an expert on this.  i'm neither a scientist or a pastor. 

but i'm not going to stick my head in the sand and believe that evolution is true because some scientists claim it is; because there are such glaring holes in evolution.

I beg you to pick up and read "Why Evolution is Right." Just give it a whirl.

[TheHamburglar]

fun muffin, what's your theory? (not baiting, I won't come back with a "you dumbass" post, seriously curious)

I believe that simple logic points to a creator.

Please explain the logic of a) dinosaur bones with no mammals in the same layers of geology, b) why the fossils record contains the fossils of thousands of species similar to species of today, but fossils of the today's species they are similar to aren't found in the geology, and c) why isn't possible the anglerfish could have evolved over time the ability to down slightly deeper over each generation(s)?

[8manpick]

oh my....

http://www.cfnews.org/Denk-ID.htm

"Editor’s Note: The following was written by a Grade 12 Catholic home-schooled student who has nurtured a keen interest in biology from his early years"

yea i saw that before quoting.  feel free to point out any lies in it. 

also i'm not catholic

It could have certainly evolved from some other, much simpler life form at that depth.  Just because a flounder couldn't have gone to that depth and evolved in to it does not preclude evolution.  Taking an example from the deep sea, which is the part of the earth we have the least knowledge about, is pretty silly IMO.  We know more about species that have been extinct for millennia than we do about the animals in the deep sea.