Jump to content


Photo

Bus Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
54 replies to this topic

#1 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 23 October 2007 - 07:51 AM

Buses evolved from Radio Flyer Wagons

It has been discovered that the wheels found on buses share not only a similar shape but also material, rubber, to Radio Flyer wagons. Even more exciting is the fact that buses found using axels to connect the adjacent tire have also been discovered on these wagons.

Radio Flyer wagons are some of the oldest species of the wagon family in existence. It has always been known from previous discoveries that the similarities between this old wagon and buses existed however this latest discovery makes it clear that the Radio Flyer wagon is an ancestor to the modern day bus we see roaming our streets today.

Other species in the automobile kingdom like cars, bicycles and even airplanes may well indeed be found to share the same Radio Flyer ancestor. The fact is that the same processes of manufacturing are used today that were found decades ago when Radio Flyers were developed. These are undisputible facts that such factories and the processes or mechanisms involved in the development of these wagons are observed in many of todays factories that make buses and other automobiles.

The overwhelming evidence of similar parts and processes in the development of buses to Radio Flyer wagons make it clear that these wagons are indeed the ancestor to Buses. Scientists are still in the process of studying other automobiles and are close to confirming that these wagons may indeed be their ancestor as well.

There is no reason to accept the idea or notion, suggested by Creationists, that the Radio Flyer factories can only develop Radio Flyer wagons. Suggesting that the parts for buses are non existent in the wagon factory and therefore is limited to development of wagons. Scientist's have discovered plenty of existing rusty Radio Flyer wagons having just 3 wheels, wheels found inside the wagon and some even with missing screws and bolts to make it clear that some of these wagons went through some changes. These changes are facts that Creationist continue to ignore. Creationists continue to argue that such changes needed to develop a bus require new parts and other types of processes or systems unique to buses not found in Radio Flyer wagons but can never provide any evidence how such parts and systems can NOT be developed from a Radio Flyer factory.

Creationists unfortunately seem all to happy to ignore the evidence presented and continue with their misguided belief that such evidence points to an intelligent source. They have yet to show any evidence to support such a notion or provide another scientific theory of how these buses and other automobiles were developed. We however will always side with the evidence wherever it is pointing and in this case as in all other cases it is clearly pointing to this amazing evolutionary process.

To summarize, here are the facts:
a) Buses and Radio Flyer wagons exist or have existed. We have the rusty wagons sitting in some of our museums for any to observe themselves.
b ) Buses and Radio Flyer wagons share many parts, shapes and even materials found in todays buses.
c) The factories that developed Radio Flyer wagons were found using many of the same processes and systems found in todays Bus factories.
d) Old rusty Radio Flyer wagons have been found with missing parts and pieces that show changes occur

These are all facts that Creationists continue to ignore and turn a blind eye to in their quest to prove the existence of an intelligent being (people) as the cause of these diverse yet similar species. Why would "people" make such things "look" like they evolved? Creationist have yet to answer that question.

Does this more or less illustrate what Evo's are trying to tell us? Help me, the Creationist, understand why this example is not a fair illustration of what Evo's are saying in regards to evolution? What am I missing here? How can I make this illustration align more fairly to what evo's are trying to say? Can evolution even be illustrated for like a 12 year old to understand? I always like to approach things in a way that a 12 year old might understand using simple language and structure. Chances are if they can understand it, anyone can.

#2 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 23 October 2007 - 09:16 AM

Honestly, that joke has just been used/reworded so many times it's not really amusing anymore.

And literally the Bus did "evolve" from the radio flyer.
there are many different definitions of evolution and more than one encompassing using previous technology and building on it.

So yeah. we all see your point, but is it worth going through again?

#3 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 23 October 2007 - 10:53 AM

Honestly, I don't really know what you mean? It wasn't really meant as a joke although ToE is a joke. Also I've never heard of this "joke" or have I reworded anything.

Yes, evolution has a general definition that evo's like to hold close because it helps blurr the lines between things like Microevolution and Macro.

And yes it is worth going through again and again. The truth of a matter is always worth going over again and again.

#4 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 23 October 2007 - 11:30 AM

Honestly, I don't really know what you mean? It wasn't really meant as a joke although ToE is a joke. Also I've never heard of this "joke" or have I reworded anything.

Yes, evolution has a general definition that evo's like to hold close because it helps blurr the lines between things like Microevolution and Macro.

And yes it is worth going through again and again. The truth of a matter is always worth going over again and again.

View Post


A schoolbus and a radioflyer ???

Come on man, that is funny. It might as well start off with, "A preist, a Rabbi and a drunk walk into a bar"

It does make a point but it is flawed.

It assumes that evolutionist saw the similarities between a man and a cockroach and came up with the theory.

When in reality, Darwin was looking at MicroEvolution (two humming birds???) which is true and is observable. Noting MicroEvolution Darwin Speculated macroevolution could occur.

So here is how your anology should work . ..

Evolutionist have noted that This radioFlyer wagon has wheels that are .3" thicker than That radioflyer's wheels. Noting that they believe that both of those radio flyers have a common ancestor.

Darwin came up with the idea becuase he saw one bird had a beak an inch longer and a little thicker, That is not comparable to a bus and a wagon.

I know that micro doesn't imply macro. I'm on your side. But your analogy doesn't fit. Even though it is humorous.

#5 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 23 October 2007 - 01:47 PM

I think your analogy is quite good. Interpretation bias is the biggest problem facing evolutionists, but a convincing explanation for anything can be conceived once enough imagination is applied to it.

Evolutionists would have us believe that Irreducible complexity is false because, in a fantastic leap of speculation, this discrete part here, doing something or other, can end up in this working cell over there. That would be like adding a part to your car's engine while it was running. The part can't simply go anywhere - so how does it figure out where to go? It has to be the right size - so what happens if it's too long or too short? It has to be in the right orientation or angle - left, right, up, down, sidewise - and how does it do that?

Evolution is a faith that basically says, with time and chance, anything is possible, absolutely anything. The Radio Flyer's tires obviously evolved and became more complex, requiring a braking system. The tub like body evolved windows and seats, which are chair components, simply drifted through the primordial soup until they "naturally" located themselves on mounting brackets that 'just happened' to be the right size. A variant species of the common bus called the 'double-decker' has been discovered in England, obviously driven by 'environmental pressures' to hold more people. Strangely, the steering mechanism is not in the usual spot. Is 'evolution' great or what!?

Evolution, as described by unbelievers, is clearly propaganda first, with a little science thrown in. It is the current fable to get people to stop believing in God. I no longer believe those who say Science has nothing to say about God one way or the other. As evidenced by numerous posts here, it is the preferred sledgehammer of the atheist and other unbelievers. They are free to not believe, but evolution is a mostly useless concept. One can live their life without it, and most people do. And bacteria, scientists have recently found bacteria in dirt that is resistent to natural and synthetic antibiotics, which also goes a long way in providing an explanation as to why bacteria can eat a synthetic fiber like nylon.


Respectfully, and God Bless,
Al

#6 Black Cat

Black Cat

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • The Hague

Posted 24 October 2007 - 01:16 AM

After long time examining the 2005 Cadillac, scientists have understood that it is basically the same model as the 2004 and 2003 versions. 98% of the parts of the previous models are used, and the production line was the same. However creationists say that as all three the models are found on the road, it is impossible that they are from the same line and same model. Also they say the production line can not be adapted to change parts, it would need a new production line.
There have been Creationists who say that while they observed the changes in the model, this is just a micro-change. The same production line is however according to them completely incapable of producing a totally different model.

Further studies show that most of the Cadillacs, even those who have no parts in common, are from the same production line. And some scientists believe that the origin of Cadillacs can be found in the completely unrelated Benz of 1899.
This theory has deemed a fairytale by Creationists, who believe that every Cadillac, and every other car are ofa unique design and can not be related in any way.

#7 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 24 October 2007 - 06:45 AM

It assumes that evolutionist saw the similarities between a man and a cockroach and came up with the theory


Ok, fine scientists didn't look at cockroaches and man and came up with the theory of evolution but you say this as if that fact somehow makes the theory more credible. Yes, my story is quite ridiculous and that is part of the point. The story may be flawed as well however how do we make the story fit the evo idea that all things evolved? Can you do it? The whole general idea that evo's have is that things evolved from simple to more complex. That's the premise this story is based on.

Evo's look at "similarities" (wheels in this case), similar mechanisms or processes (assembly line), similar parts and materials (nuts, bolts, steel, rubber etc.) and similar structures that produce or make these automobiles (factories) and conclude that based on all said evidence Buses evolved naturaly without any intelligence and that all things slowly came about naturaly.

So is there any story, based on a reality we can all relate to, that we can use to help illustrate the evo position? I've made an attempt using automobiles is all.

#8 Black Cat

Black Cat

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • The Hague

Posted 24 October 2007 - 09:00 AM

Written language.
The first written languages were picture based, showing events and things that people knew to describe events. As it evolved, pictures were replaced by sounds that decribed the pronounciation of the pictures.
In a need for more information, words were formed by contracting two sounds, to form a picture of something new. Gradually more information was added, relating to time (present, past, future) and relations (subject,object).

Written language of today has nothing in common with the original picture based language and is more complex, even though some languages have become more simple over the last ages by removing unnecessary parts.

There are languages that are now extinct, although we find remains of them. These extinct languages have changed in to new languages, which people can not understand without teaching. Yet for those who study the original extinct language, all the new languages become more simple to learn as they share a common base.

Our children are communicating in a simple form of written language, needed to put more information in a small space. And about 25 years ago, due to the limits of putting emotions into written language in a short form, people have started again to use picture representative emotions, going back to the origins. :lol:

#9 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 24 October 2007 - 10:31 AM

how do we make the story fit the evo idea that all things evolved? Can you do it?



why would i do it? Why are you doing it?

Why debate stories??

Why do creationist want to make up evolution stories and analogies?

Would you want evolutionist making up creationist stories and analogies?

I just don't see the point in Making fun of Evolutionist.



Well actually I do, i like to make fun of them too, but this really isn't the place. ya know what I mean?

#10 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 24 October 2007 - 01:58 PM

Well for one 4jacks, the theory "IS" a story. A fairytale. Since evo's don't and can't provide scientific evidence to support their story let's help illustrate further the fact that that is all ToE is.

Also I don't mind if they make up Creationist stories. In fact that story has already been given so all they need to do is read it themselves.

I don't think you're really appreciating what I'm trying to do here. This is not about making fun of evo's this is about exposing evolution for what it really is, a fairytale. A fairytale evo's like to tell us is reality. It's not, it's fantasy. As fantastic as the story I've just told.

I think this is exactly the place to expose it for what it really is, as the title of this website suggests, "Evolution, A Fairytale for Grownups"

#11 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 24 October 2007 - 03:00 PM

Well for one 4jacks, the theory "IS" a story. A fairytale.


Yeah, I figured that out on my own.

Since evo's don't and can't provide scientific evidence to support their story


Well that's funny, becuase They ARE providing scientific evidence to support thier story.

I don't know if you noticed but this forum has a Lot of threads started by Evo's aimed to prove there theories.



Also I don't mind if they make up Creationist stories.


Really, becuase when starhopper made up the Creation story it kinda bugged me becuase it wasn't anything like how Creationist portray it.

So I don't see how you doing it to them is anybetter.


I don't think you're really appreciating what I'm trying to do here. This is not about making fun of evo's this is about exposing evolution for what it really is, a fairytale.


I do understand and appreciate what you are doing. But I think you are failing.
You are not exposing evolution, you are posting a Straw Man.

You are saying... "Look at this, this is what Evo's believe, this is ridiculous."

Evo's don't believe in what you posted. Evo's have a very complex, very well though out theory. This theory has Slaughtered our school systems.

You are pretending that Evolution is completely retarded. It's NOT. There are hundreds of thousands of really smart people believing it. You are underestimating the enemy.

#12 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 24 October 2007 - 08:32 PM

They have been ordered not to teach anything else. Do a google search, most people in the US want some sort of Creation taught in schools.

But back to the bus. Busses don't assemble themselves, that requires intelligence. Cells don't assemble themselves from scratch, that also requires intelligence. The evolutionists need this "theory" because they want to get rid of God.



God bless,
Al

#13 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 26 October 2007 - 01:16 PM

After long time examining the 2005 Cadillac, scientists have understood that it is basically the same model as the 2004 and 2003 versions. 98% of the parts of the previous models are used, and the production line was the same. However creationists say that as all three the models are found on the road, it is impossible that they are from the same line and same model. Also they say the production line can not be adapted to change parts, it would need a new production line.
There have been Creationists who say that while they observed the changes in the model, this is just a micro-change. The same production line is however according to them completely incapable of producing a totally different model.

Further studies show that most of the Cadillacs, even those who have no parts in common, are from the same production line. And some scientists believe that the origin of Cadillacs can be found in the completely unrelated Benz of 1899.
This theory has deemed a fairytale by Creationists, who believe that every Cadillac, and every other car are ofa unique design and can not be related in any way.

View Post


1 - Cadillacs are designed , the 2% percent of difference is fruit of planning and not the fruit of random changes in the production line.
2 - Creationists believe that every car can be related by design, evos are the one who believes that relation can only be achieved by common ancestor.

#14 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 26 October 2007 - 01:20 PM

Written language.
The first written languages were picture based, showing events and things that people knew to describe events. As it evolved, pictures were replaced by sounds that decribed the pronounciation of the pictures.
In a need for more information, words were formed by contracting two sounds, to form a picture of something new. Gradually more information was added, relating to time (present, past, future) and relations (subject,object).

Written language of today has nothing in common with the original picture based language and is more complex, even though some languages have become more simple over the last ages by removing unnecessary parts.

There are languages that are now extinct, although we find remains of them. These extinct languages have changed in to new languages, which people can not understand without teaching. Yet for those who study the original extinct language, all the new languages become more simple to learn as they share a common base.

Our children are communicating in a simple form of written language, needed to put more information in a small space. And about 25 years ago, due to the limits of putting emotions into written language in a short form, people have started again to use picture representative emotions, going back to the origins.  :lol:

View Post


First, your story is only speculation about how language evolved.You have no evidence.
Second, assuming your story is true, people are intelligent, so the evolution of language was intelligent designed.Language didnt evolve through random mutations of combined letters.

#15 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 26 October 2007 - 02:04 PM

If you can't see why I'm making this story then how can you really say you appreciate what I'm doing, why are you even posting about it then? More so how can you even judge that I'm failing with it when you don't understand what it is I'm trying to do here? What straw man do you think I'm making? It seems like there are two others here that get what I was saying.

It's very simple 4jacks. All things designed, created or made require an intelligent source! What evidence do evo's have that you think is so compelling? It has not a thing to do with how smart people are it has everything to do with their own religion or philosophy. That religion tells them that things can be made without intelligence. That's not a straw man that's what they believe and you agree with that?

However I know what you mean about a strawman of some specifics to their story which is what I was asking for. So sure I can adjust the story to be "less" strawman-ish by adding another old wagon like the 1930's Cub Cruiser, which in my opinion is a nicer and more elegant design. :lol: What you are failing to get is that it's impossible to make an analogy of evolution the way evo's try and explain it using scientific evidence that can just as easily be evidence of an intelligent designer. THAT'S the point! So the details to their fairytale really doesn't make much of a difference to the premise that all things came about naturally. Do you think it does make a difference?

Try it 4jacks. You don't have to post it here but take all that you know about evolution and make an analogy for yourself so it can compare nicely with what evolution is trying to tell us? Use all the detail you want. You can't do it. There's no reality you can use that a 12 year old can relate to when trying to explain evolution to them. Where is there any example of things assembling themselves together to form more complex structures as evo's want us to believe?

The story I told is ridiculous because it's absurd to think that buses could have evolved from a less complex model without any intelligence,. That's why this story is important in the discussion of evolution. Creationists and I.D.ists say intelligence is required evo's say no it isn't. Evos take the same scientific data that Creationists and I.D.ists use but make the fantastic conclusion that the evidence shows a "natural" source for all creation. That's not a strawman. You can quibble about all the details of the story they tell all you want but the basic premise is that all things came about "naturally", intelligence need not apply.

If you still don't get it then by all means you are free to exercise your privilege to move on to other more interesting and less strawmanish posts here.

#16 Black Cat

Black Cat

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • The Hague

Posted 27 October 2007 - 01:23 AM

First, your story is only speculation about how language evolved.You have no evidence.
Second, assuming your story is true, people are intelligent, so the evolution of language was intelligent designed.Language didnt evolve through random mutations of combined letters.

View Post

Prove to me language is created instead of evolved. Where is the 'design' that a single person decided the language was there. A language that was designed is Esperanto. However it is designed using existing elements, more or less like a fruitfly design.
The changes in language follow a pattern of random contributions by individuals that lead to a change in the language. There is no need that contributions come by single letter mutations, they come by mutations of words and writing.
Although thou shall thinketh letter mutations are visible. :lol:

#17 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 27 October 2007 - 05:51 AM

Prove to me language is created instead of evolved. Where is the 'design' that a single person decided the language was there. A language that was designed is Esperanto. However it is designed using existing elements, more or less like a fruitfly design.
The changes in language follow a pattern of random contributions by individuals that lead to a change in the language. There is no need that contributions come by single letter mutations, they come by mutations of words and writing.
Although thou shall thinketh letter mutations are visible.  :lol:

View Post


It´s easy, any child knows that people create new words and new meanings for existing words all the time.Two classical examples occurred in Brazil, the word "Solucionática" created by a soccer player and the word "Imexível" created by a minister.There is no registered case of a baby born already knowing any language, so language is not a biological process, it´s not coded in DNA.Language is created by intelligence.The changes in language is not a random process, words are created by persons with the purpose of sending a message to other persons.The mutations of the words are intelligent guided.You are being silly trying to argue about this.

#18 Black Cat

Black Cat

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • The Hague

Posted 27 October 2007 - 08:21 AM

I am merely giving an example of a process that could be argued to mimic evolution. People create words to express new things, they do not create languages.

There is also no registered case of a baby bornalready believing inany religion, or knowing the theory of evolution. All of these things are taught, and can be taugh different.

Changes in evolution are said to be by single mutations caused by the environment, in long time leading to a new species. Changes in language are caused by individuals caused by the wish of new expressions, in long time leading to new languages.
There are many ways to compare both processes. Which by the way does not make them equal, or one a proof for the other.

#19 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 27 October 2007 - 01:20 PM

I am merely giving an example of a process that could be argued to mimic evolution. People create words to express new things, they do not create languages.


I think you are very confusing :lol:

There is also no registered case of a baby bornalready believing inany religion, or knowing the theory of evolution. All of these things are taught, and can be taugh different.


And so what ?

Changes in evolution are said to be by single mutations caused by the environment, in long time leading to a new species. Changes in language are caused by individuals caused by the wish of new expressions, in long time leading to new languages.

First, You are contradicting yourself, You said people dont create languages, now you say that changes in language caused by people create new languages.You must decide yourself.
Second, mutations in the DNA are a random unguided process, Mutations in language are a guided intelligent process.

There are many ways to compare both processes. Which by the way does not make them equal, or one a proof for the other.

View Post


So, you are wasting our time. :lol:

#20 Black Cat

Black Cat

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • The Hague

Posted 27 October 2007 - 01:53 PM

I think you are very confusing  :lol:
And so what ?
First, You are contradicting yourself, You said people dont create languages, now you say that changes in language caused by people create new languages.You must decide yourself.
Second, mutations in the DNA are a random unguided process, Mutations in language are a guided intelligent process.
So, you are wasting our time. :lol:

View Post

Thanks that you find me confusing. It means my point is slowly getting across.
Changes in language are just as random and unguided as mutations in DNA. Mutations are created by people, but languages as a whole are not, they are a collective result of individual mutations. Grammar and word changes are made official by recording mutations that already happened, not the other way around.

Just tell me I am right and you do not have to waste time on this :P
The developing of language is not proof for evolution, but it is the 'simple method' asked as example of how such a process could work.
The completely different thing is how we obtained the ability to express language. :P




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users