PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Genetics and evolution
       For LEster

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does a gill slot present in the human embryo really indicate aquatic,evolutionary ancestors?.
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 7:27 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

trilobite Hmm! primitive? Really.God can see all time (he created it).Maybe i should Address this post to creationists,But i know evolutionists will read also.We are all brothers and sisters(One species if you like).At least, We can agree on that.we of faith know God is real and alive,I at least can not put my knowing into words That conveys the truth of my belief,or others in God.But (please) keep it on the level of intellect,You know your stuff obviously.And have the intellect to convey it.Having the God you love,Named and insulting remarks made is as personal as me bad mouthing your mother.I would not dream of doing that by the way,Honestly!.Anyway the trilobite
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:03 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anyway the trilobite
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:07 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Trilobite eyes are very sophisticated,Quote-trilobite eyes are the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produce by nature-Top science news Feb.1974 p.72.Quote2-Eyes never exceeded in complexity,And acuity.-stephen j.gould natural history magazine.Feb 1984.p23 .thanks all  
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:08 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Think-Twice

I love your enthusiasm, But

Don't Spam !



(Edited by anti-evolutionist 9/28/2009 at 09:11 AM).


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 9:44 PM on September 27, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 03:44 AM on September 28, 2009 :
your almost as bad as derwood

Can't say I noticed derwood spamming. Any chance you could point us towards where you think he's spammed?
Cheers






-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 07:29 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

your almost as bad as derwood
Can't say I noticed derwood spamming. Any chance you could point us towards where you think he's spammed?
Cheers

Think-Twice posted:
7:11 PM on September 27
7:21 PM on September 27
7:27 PM on September 27
and then again:
9:03 PM on September 27
9:07 PM on September 27
9:08 PM on September 27

that is 3 posts in 16min and 5min respectively (21min total, with break)



Derwood posted: (evolution theory)
2:25 PM on September 24
2:31 PM on September 24
2:32 PM on September 24
2:35 PM on September 24
2:36 PM on September 24
2:38 PM on September 24

that is 6 posts in 13min



all that being said, Derwood just gets under my nerves, and I should learn to show more self control.
I'm sorry Derwood


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 08:33 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E, I would have to disagree with you in your opinion that Derwood was spamming there. Spam is based on more that simply the frequency of posts. Content is also important esp w.r.t. relevance to the conversation.  Derwood, it would appear, made multiple posts in order to separate his responses to specific points, quoted, referenced and cohesive (almost the opposit of Think - Twice's 'scattergun' approach.
all that being said, Derwood just gets under my nerves, and I should learn to show more self control.
I'm guessing you mean either "On my nerves" or "Under my skin" ;). You have to realize that this kind of approach is very unlikely to bother Derwood, in fact I'm quite sure he will be happy to hear that he is bothering you. Your approach serves only to reduce the level of respect that other forum members may have for you. 'Spitting the dummy' just because you don't like someone's approach is a habit you should probably try to avoid on fora such as this. Happy posting


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 08:54 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 7:27 PM on September 27, 2009 :
Does a gill slot present in the human embryo really indicate aquatic,evolutionary ancestors?.


No.

Human embryos do not have gill slits.  Neither do fish embryos for that matter.  But both fish and human embryos DO have structures in the presumptive neck region called branhial apparatus (or pharyngeal apparatus).  In fish, the branchial apparatus becomes the gills and associated structures, in humans, it becomes structures in the face and neck.  Very good evidence for a shared ancestry, IMO.



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:16 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

after noticing that on two separate occasions I have felt the need to apologise to Derwood, it has (finally) occurred to me that my childish attitude towards him is doing nothing but giving me a bad reputation.
so from here on in I promise, to all those who happen to read this post, not to insult, make witty remarks about, complain about, or in any way act in an unprofessional manner towards Derwood

and to be sure that I stick to my word. I will also request that if I show any signs of reverting to my old ways, could everyone please rub my face in it. make absolutely sure that I know what I am doing
thanks


and hopefully for the last time.
I am sorry Derwood for the way I have been treating you.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 7:01 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apologizing presupposes I even care about your silly antics.

Stop the overdramatization and just learn a little background knowledge on tthe stuff you rant about.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:01 AM on September 29, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

and focus on the debate rather than trivialities.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 6:43 PM on September 30, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 6:43 PM on September 30, 2009 :
and focus on the debate rather than trivialities.



[i]It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

   – St. Augustine: De Genesi ad literam 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:37 PM on September 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

derwood
Lester
Is conflicting molecular data poised to replace morphological data? My point was that they are conflicting so how can we know which is true.
(...) According to your logic, the fact that there are multiple interpretations of Scripture should negate Scripture's worth in toto, but I have a feeling that you would not accept such universal applications of standards.
Keen observation, derwood.

I mean, yeah, we all know that creationist arguments are filled with double standards, but it's hard to catch them all. Like Pokémons.

Lester
No amount of refuting evolutionary-based classification even begins to 'prove' creation.
Well it does show how today’s facts are invariably tomorrow’s mistakes and you wonder why we don’t believe you.
That's when you show your anti-science real color.

Like Tim Minchin said:
So I resist the urge to ask Storm
Whether knowledge is so loose-weave,
Of a morning,
When deciding whether to leave
Her apartment by the front door...
Or the window on her second floor.

Our knowledge and science serves you well when you enjoy your Internet connection, medicine, et cetera.

Do you think that the knowledge of the facts that allow us to build computers today are tomorrow's mistakes?

There ARE mistakes, yeah. And our knowledge keeps growing nevertheless. And you're showing your resistance to it.

"Knowledge is merely opinion", said Storm, in Minchin's brilliant story.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:13 PM on October 26, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from wisp at 1:13 PM on it's hard to catch them all. Like Pokémons.


I believe it is "catch 'em all", not "catch them all". I used to be obsessed with Pokemon when they first came out on game-boy; back when they had black and white graphics, and you needed to be in a well lit area and have the game-boy at just the right angle to see what was going on. Epic days those were.



-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:09 PM on October 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thick-Twice
Just to say,Jesus Christ is not a myth,There was a person (i believe more than a person)that walked the earth.Established fact, Historical evidence. yours sincerely creationist
'Established fact' based just on 'historical evidence'?
Do you have any photo evidence of an advantageous mutation in any animal/insect even?.seen as it an ongoing process, ceaseless. I've seen a photo of the loch ness monster,Looks like a dinosaur.Yours sincerely Creationist
Oh... Now you demand photo evidence (of a mutation)... Talk about double standards.

The evidence for Evolution is undeniable by any smart person.
If you like 'historical evidence', well... The fossils, strata, tree rings, radioactive elements, etc are all pretty much like witnesses (only without the emotional investment, political interests, delusions, hallucinations, fear, wishful thinking or low IQ).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:41 PM on October 29, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The fossils, strata, tree rings, radioactive elements, etc are all pretty much like witnesses


Only the fossils have systematic gaps, radiometric dating doesn't work so the assumptions have to be incorrect and the strata have to be interpreted. If you believe in millions of years of mutation and natural selection, you try to make the strata fit your worldview.

The evidence for Evolution is undeniable by any smart person.


If you avoid the evidence, then yes it is undeniable. If you're a smart person, you don't ignore the vast amounts of contradictory evidence.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:22 AM on October 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From the fellow who wrote:

"If you want tons of empty rhetoric decorated with vast quantities of pompous arrogance then try Derwood out."

I give you the brilliant science-filled rebuttal of Dr. Lester the sceince-degree expert on all things:


Quote from Lester10 at 04:22 AM on October 30, 2009 :
The fossils, strata, tree rings, radioactive elements, etc are all pretty much like witnesses


Only the fossils have systematic gaps, radiometric dating doesn't work so the assumptions have to be incorrect and the strata have to be interpreted. If you believe in millions of years of mutation and natural selection, you try to make the strata fit your worldview.

The evidence for Evolution is undeniable by any smart person.


If you avoid the evidence, then yes it is undeniable. If you're a smart person, you don't ignore the vast amounts of contradictory evidence.




Wow, who can argue with such a detailed, well explained, evidence-backed response!

Oh, wait...

Um....

Seems that you've been asked about:

systematic gaps
radiometric dating assumptions
vast amounts of contradictory evidence

I won't even mention the usual unsupported charges hurled at legitimate scientists whose work contradicts the pre-determined (i.e., anti-scientific, dishonest) beliefs of YECs and their ilk.

Do, Dr. Lester - do you EVER plan to actually EXPLAIN any of the claims you make, or is the Christian Creationists' game that you plan to keep playing is 1. hurl charges 2. hurl assertions 3. refuse to actually explain anything 4. accuse opponants of doing the things that YOU have actually been doing all along 5. ignore substantive posts and then claim that they do not exist 6. repeat?



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:56 PM on October 30, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
The fossils, strata, tree rings, radioactive elements, etc are all pretty much like witnesses
Only the fossils have systematic gaps,
And i've asked you plenty of times why is that a problem. You don't answer, so don't mention it.

What would you tell me if i say that chewing gum is evidence against God, but don't explain myself?
radiometric dating doesn't work
Start a thread (you'll be left with nothing to say, as usual)..
so the assumptions have to be incorrect
Do we have to take your word for it, or will you show us the reasoning behind that?
and the strata have to be interpreted.
If you manage to believe in the false (but not particularly stupid) notion that a flood can create layers (according to the different properties of the minerals), then it couldn't possibly produce repeated layers.
Like this:

That's my interpretation.
What's yours?

'Yes, it can' won't quite enough.
If you believe in millions of years of mutation and natural selection, you try to make the strata fit your worldview.
Actually the layers came first. The idea of mutations and natural selection came later.

The evidence for Evolution is undeniable by any smart person.
If you avoid the evidence,
I don't. So i have to ignore the rest of the sentence.
If you're a smart person,
I am.
you don't ignore the vast amounts of contradictory evidence.
Start threads. I don't know what you're talking about.

You've been left with no answers. Check the many dozens of unanswered posts and pieces of evidence. Like this one:

My interpretation is that you've lost. I'm sure you'll have a different one.




-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:13 PM on October 30, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 1:56 PM on October 30, 2009 :
From the fellow who wrote:

"If you want tons of empty rhetoric decorated with vast quantities of pompous arrogance then try Derwood out."

I give you the brilliant science-filled rebuttal of Dr. Lester the sceince-degree expert on all things:


Quote from Lester10 at 04:22 AM on October 30, 2009 :
The fossils, strata, tree rings, radioactive elements, etc are all pretty much like witnesses


Only the fossils have systematic gaps, radiometric dating doesn't work so the assumptions have to be incorrect and the strata have to be interpreted. If you believe in millions of years of mutation and natural selection, you try to make the strata fit your worldview.

The evidence for Evolution is undeniable by any smart person.


If you avoid the evidence, then yes it is undeniable. If you're a smart person, you don't ignore the vast amounts of contradictory evidence.




Wow, who can argue with such a detailed, well explained, evidence-backed response!

Oh, wait...

Um....

Seems that you've been asked about:

systematic gaps
radiometric dating assumptions
vast amounts of contradictory evidence

I won't even mention the usual unsupported charges hurled at legitimate scientists whose work contradicts the pre-determined (i.e., anti-scientific, dishonest) beliefs of YECs and their ilk.

Do, Dr. Lester - do you EVER plan to actually EXPLAIN any of the claims you make, or is the Christian Creationists' game that you plan to keep playing is 1. hurl charges 2. hurl assertions 3. refuse to actually explain anything 4. accuse opponants of doing the things that YOU have actually been doing all along 5. ignore substantive posts and then claim that they do not exist 6. repeat?




Snooore...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:14 PM on March 11, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Whence the guy so super impressed by philosopher Meyer?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:54 PM on March 29, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 1:56 PM on October 30, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 04:22 AM on October 30, 2009 :
Only the fossils have systematic gaps, radiometric dating doesn't work.

Seems that you've been asked about:

systematic gaps
radiometric dating assumptions
vast amounts of contradictory evidence
...
Do, Dr. Lester - do you EVER plan to actually EXPLAIN any of the claims you make...?


Note the date.

Seems ol' "doc" Lester has been asserting his 'systematic gaps' bit for nearly a year and STILL can't seem to be able to explain it.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:11 PM on September 11, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.