Cloth-Clad Clovis

The Western Hemisphere. General term for the Americas following their discovery by Europeans, thus setting them in contradistinction to the Old World of Africa, Europe, and Asia.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Frank Harrist

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by Frank Harrist » Sun Apr 04, 2010 5:04 pm

You keep asking for "crocoducks". Would a platypus do?

User avatar
Digit
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by Digit » Sun Apr 04, 2010 5:05 pm

I know! The article can still be found, it will help you in understanding how changes arise.
You said that species arise out of nowhere, something out of nothing, even God needed soil to create the first man, you seem to go further than Him!

Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt

Frank Harrist

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by Frank Harrist » Sun Apr 04, 2010 5:16 pm

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ution.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -fish.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz= ... es&spell=1

http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmag/bk_ ... feat7.html


"Millions of fossils, found in well-dated sequences of rocks, show evolution of forms through time and show many transitions among species. Charles Darwin began in 1831 to assemble a huge body of evidence that he analyzed and evaluated for more than 25 years before he carefully deduced a new rule of descent of organisms with modification. The rules of evolution and natural selection have been observed to apply to viruses within a few hours, to reptiles on islands changed by a hurricane over a few months, to fish in isolated ponds over a few years, and to horses over millions of years. "

And just off the top of my head, what about archaeopterix? http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... haeopteryx


Your turn, uni!

Frank Harrist

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by Frank Harrist » Sun Apr 04, 2010 5:21 pm

Oh and this too...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildli ... olour.html

Now, refute these links with facts. or other links,.... or just wing it.

User avatar
Digit
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by Digit » Sun Apr 04, 2010 5:23 pm

Now, refute these links with facts.
Not holding your breath are you? :lol:

Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt

Frank Harrist

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by Frank Harrist » Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:09 pm

Not at all. He can't or won't do it.

uniface

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by uniface » Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:56 pm

Millions of fossils, found in well-dated sequences of rocks, show evolution of forms through time and show many transitions among species.
Au contraire, mon ami. The overall record -- to the despair of the evolutionaries -- is one of stasis. Cockroaches appear and . . . remain cockroaches.

The record shows a progression from simple beginnings toward complexity and sophistication. From bacteria and amoebae to mammals. That far, that good. But the claim of intermediary forms connecting these, with one creature "evolving" into the next, does not hold up. Modifications in the face of environmental challenges, yes. But evolution, no.

uniface

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by uniface » Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:01 pm

Found on a discussion board and, IMHO, worth repeating :
To prove molecules-to-man evolution, you would have to show that you can breed dogs and eventually come up with cats, or whales, or anything else other than dogs. For molecules-to-man evolution to be work, NEW genetic information has to be added every step of the way. The current thought is that the new genetic information is added by random mutations, but it would take a major statistical miracle for random mutations to add new coherent and meaningful information to any process.

Think of it this way, if you add random mutations to a radio signal, what are you going to get? Random static or a new original piece of music?
:(

uniface

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by uniface » Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:08 pm

Another :
To sum it up, here is what Dr. Austin Clark, a leading biologist of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington has to day about the subject: "No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life on earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the major groups of phyla. Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the living or the fossil animals, of any intergrading types following the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been any such intergrading types. There are no such things as missing links. ... Missing links are misinterpretations."

User avatar
Digit
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by Digit » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:39 am

So now we have one nut quoting another nut as support for the first nut!
Uni, please stop quoting from discussion boards of like minds to your own. I recently red a Canadian poster who like you denies the holocaust and informed me that 'only 150000 died'.
You are talking rubbish and quoting rubbish in support.
No matter what we say you repeat the same stupid arguments, 'arise from nowhere', 'no intemediate species' etc etc ad nauseum!
Where the bloody hell in NS do you think that Cockroaches are gonna breed and produce Fleas etc. All you are doing is proving your lack of understanding of the basic precepts.
Give us all a break!

Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt

Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15809
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by Minimalist » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:22 am

Um, Uni, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you are simply uncritically posting stuff from creationist web sites but it really wasn't all that hard to track this down.

Dr. Clark is dead. Moreover, that comment you mention seems to date from 1926. Voila'

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/roanok ... refs.htm#C
Clark, Austin H., THE NEW EVOLUTION - Zoogenesis, (The Williams & Wilkins Company, Baltimore, 1930). The author proposes a "new" theory of evolution, in which all life evolved from a primitive germ cell. The book starts out with lots of observations made by the author about life - and then he uses that as a background for his theory. In a way, his book is kind of like Darwin's ORIGIN.

"Thus the only fact of cosmic significance in the whole subject of evolution in its broadest sense is the appearance of the single cell. The single cell has inherent in itself the potentiality for development, through selective and progressive reduction in various directions and in various ways, into every form of life which at any time may be capable of existence and of self-perpetuation under the conditions obtaining at that time.

All animal types are therefore to be regarded, in their relation to cosmic evolution, simply as varied and varying manifestations of the inherent potentialities of the fundamental substance protoplasm. Such a concept contemplates the animal world as in reality but a single unit finding its expression in an infinity of equations all of which, no matter how complicated they may seem, reduce themselves to the same fundamental term." (page 216).

Of course, today we know that Clark is wrong, and that in fact the basis of heredity is not the cell itself. Maybe Clark hadn't read Morgan's book (see below) yet. This same problem was what led T.D. Lysenko (see below) to believe in acquired characteristics rather than inheritable genetic entities; this mistake might have been understandable in the 1930's, but to hold on to such an obvious belief for another 30 years in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary is one of the greatest disasters to happen to the Soviet Union.

Come on, man. What's next? Ray Comfort's crocoducks?
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin

uniface

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by uniface » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:57 am

Looks like they're dealing off the bottom of the deck too then :|

Frank Harrist

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by Frank Harrist » Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:25 pm

Roy, Bob, we're wasting our time arguing with this guy. He's convinced he's right and just like Arch, all our arguments just roll off him like water off a duck's back. I've decide to believe what i believe and let him delude himself all he wants. It has no effect on me when others are ignorant. I'm out of it.

User avatar
Digit
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by Digit » Mon Apr 05, 2010 12:36 pm

Roy, Bob, we're wasting our time arguing with this guy.
Absolutely, but you see gents I'm a secret Jehovah's Witness and I'll keep knocking at his door till he tells me to B****r off!
Then of course there's entertainment value!

Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt

Frank Harrist

Re: Cloth-Clad Clovis

Post by Frank Harrist » Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:28 pm

To me, he's the Jehova's Witless. I am not entertained.

Post Reply