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
     numbers not in evolutionists f
       numbers not in evolutionists f

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 20 21 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When reasonable people say "Information" they mean something that can be measured, objectively or subjectively, in my opinion.

Objective measure: Digitalize the data (then zip it for best results). Count the bytes.

Subjective measure: How helpful is it?

The second is the worst one, and they can't even manage to do that.

ATATATAT <--- How much info do you see there?


(Edited by wisp 11/19/2009 at 9:23 PM).


-------
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: 9:22 PM on November 19, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 8:52 PM on November 19, 2009 :

What a  mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step-say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" (Darwin's Black
Box


Good thing that nobody who understands evolution says that this has to occur.

The creationist position is so weak they must erect fictitious positions to argue against.



-------
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: 10:01 PM on November 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah

For instance, a book such as Homer's Iliad contains information, but is the physical book itself information? No, the materials of the book-the paper, ink and glue contain the contents, but they are only a means of
transporting it


Wisp

We don't know what they're talking about, and they don't either.


Errr… you don’t understand what Pharoah has written Wisp? Could you try again?
I mean, I don’t think that even a stupid person wouldn’t understand the concept of information being separate from matter and energy as exemplified above. I must have overrated your intelligence OR are you perhaps being wilfully blind? The Bible does speak of the wilfully blind ones in the end times that don’t see because they don’t want to. Is that what is going on here, do you think???

Apoapsis The creationist position is so weak they must erect fictitious positions to argue against.


In actual fact, the evolutionist position is so weak that they must shut their eyes and keep repeating that they can’t see, shut their ears and whine that they can’t hear either. An evolutionist can’t understand what information is because it isn’t in the best interests of his religion.



-------
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: 04:24 AM on November 20, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'll have to go back and review those lectures on information theory I gave back when I was teaching and see what I missed.


-------
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: 07:26 AM on November 20, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:24 AM on November 20, 2009 :
I must have overrated your intelligence OR are you perhaps being wilfully blind?


I'm sure if Timbrx were here, he'd call you a condescending ass...


The Bible does speak of the wilfully blind ones in the end times that don’t see because they don’t want to.


The bible also speaks about unicorns and curing leprosy by sacrificing pigeons.
An evolutionist can’t understand what information is because it isn’t in the best interests of his religion.


Well then please, set us all straight.

You've been asked several times to define information in a biologically relevant way and you have, as far as I can tell, avoided doing so.

Since you have such a clear grasp of the subject, why the obfuscation?





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:27 AM on November 20, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp
We don't know what they're talking about, and they don't either.
[/color]
Errr… you don’t understand what Pharoah has written Wisp?
I do. Not knowing that you people talk about (which you don't either) doesn't mean i don't understand it.
Could you try again?
Yeap.

Done.

I mean, I don’t think that even a stupid person wouldn’t understand the concept of information being separate from matter and energy as exemplified above.
When i use that word i know what i'm talking about, and you don't.

I can demonstrate it to you easily: How much information is there in the human DNA?

You'll shut right up, thus my point is proven.

I must have overrated your intelligence OR are you perhaps being wilfully blind?
I prefer the first. I rather be called "dumb" than "dishonest".
The Bible does speak of the wilfully blind ones in the end times that don’t see because they don’t want to.
The word is "wiLLfully".
Do you remember that passage? Did you really read it or you just heard it somewhere?
Is that what is going on here, do you think???
No, i don't.

Anyway, the Bible also says, in Romans 16:17
Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.
New American Standard Bible
You shouldn't be talking to us. You sinner!

On the same spirit 2 John 1:10 says
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.
King James Bible
I'm sorry that you have a sacred book that you can't possibly follow.

Apoapsis The creationist position is so weak they must erect fictitious positions to argue against.
In actual fact, the evolutionist position is so weak that they must shut their eyes and keep repeating that they can’t see, shut their ears and whine that they can’t hear either.
Lester! "In actual fact" is the same as "Actually"!!

You only use that expression when you're about to state something obvious (and it's not, since it's the subject of the discussion), or when you're about to present an argument! You just tossed a claim!

Seriously, Lester. Ban that expression from your vocabulary. You never use it correctly.
An evolutionist can’t understand what information is because it isn’t in the best interests of his religion.
Does that include information theorists?



-------
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: 10:55 AM on November 20, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So expound about information? Is it separate from the medium in the case my buddy has cited?


-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 8:52 PM on November 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 8:52 PM on November 22, 2009 :
So expound about information? Is it separate from the medium in the case my buddy has cited?


OK, here it is from the master of information himself, Claude Shannon:

The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages. The system must be designed to operate for each possible selection, not just the one which will actually be chosen since this is unknown at the time of design.

A Mathematical Theory of Communication


-------
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: 10:42 PM on November 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Very well said.

To me there are two things you can refer to when you say "information". The one that deals with meaning/purpose is communication between two intellects. The other one is everywhere. In any atom.

Creationists simply confuse those two. The classic equivocation fallacy.

I mean, I don’t think that even a stupid person wouldn’t understand the concept of information being separate from matter and energy as exemplified above.
When i use that word i know what i'm talking about, and you don't.

I can demonstrate it to you easily: How much information is there in the human DNA?

You'll shut right up, thus my point is proven.
And he did shut right up. See, Pharoah, how easy it is?

When they say "information" they mean one of two things (and they don't know which one anyway):

If they talk about how useful it is, they are using the subjective meaning of "information", which is useless when talking about DNA. It cannot be quantified, so the question of "Adding information" is meaningless. Demonstrate it by asking them to quantify the information.

If they talk about bits and bytes of information, they are using the objective meaning of "information". They are fucked up. Adding information is not only possible but trivial. Gene duplication adds information. They lose.

Did you get it, Pharoah?

If they can't quantify it, then why ask for a mutation that adds information? If they can, then offer them gene duplication. It adds bytes of information. There's no question about it.



-------
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: 07:37 AM on November 23, 2009 | IP
Pharoah

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Been awhile since anyone posted, but I will post here the latest that I received. Here goes for your consumption.
---

THE DECEPTION REGARDING MUTATIONS

   -    Mutations are breaks or displacements in an organism’s genetic code, or DNA, as a result of radiation or chemical effects.

   -    Mutations also damage the nucleotides (the molecules that make up DNA, expressed by the letters A, T, G and C).

   -    Mutations take place at random. They are unconscious and totally coincidental events that impact on perfect structures.

   -    99% OF MUTATIONS ARE HARMFUL and 1% have no effect. NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE BENEFICIAL MUTATION HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED.

   -    It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE for mutations to make organisms more developed and perfect in the way Darwinists maintain.

   -    The changes caused by mutations can only be of the kind suffered by people at Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Chernobyl; in other words, death, deformation and disease.

   -    Mutations HAVE NO ABILITY TO ADD A LIFE FORM’S DNA ANY NEW INFORMATION THAT DOES NOT ALREADY EXIST.

   -    Mutations can add no information of fins to the genetic structure of a bird, for instance. Mutations are merely breakages and displacements in an organism’s genes. Breakages or displacements in a gene cannot bestow any new information on that gene.


The false idea that errors in DNA replication evolve organisms

Ergi Deniz Ozsoy’s claim: Errors take place while DNA is copying itself, as a result of which errors mutations and genetic variations occur, and these mutations lead to changes in the organism.

   -    DNA is replicated when every cell in the human body divides. The division of one cell lasts between 20 and 80 minutes, and the information on DNA needs to be copied and multiplied within that time scale. In other words, the 3 billion pieces of information in DNA are copied with no faults or omissions.

   -    The multiplication process runs so smoothly that the rate of error is only one in 3 billion base pairs.

   -    This one error is eliminated by the higher control mechanisms in the body without causing any problems. As the DNA of a cell is copied enzymes control its composition.

   -    If an irretrievable error takes place during DNA replication, and if the enzymes cannot repair it – this last being an exceedingly remote possibility – this means a fatal error for the DNA.

   -    To claim that a random intervention that will eliminate the extraordinary order in an extraordinarily glorious and giant molecule such as DNA, which carries 1 million pages of information, adds new information to it represents a serious logical fiasco.



-------
================<br>Have a good day
 


Posts: 23 | Posted: 9:24 PM on December 4, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pharoah at 9:24 PM on December 4, 2009 :
Been awhile since anyone posted, but I will post here the latest that I received. Here goes for your consumption.
---
(Delete plagiarized text from Harun Yahya)


Do you consider Islamic creationism superior to Christian creationism?



-------
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: 10:21 PM on December 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

-    Mutations are breaks or displacements in an organism’s genetic code, or DNA, as a result of radiation or chemical effects.
So what?
-    Mutations also damage the nucleotides (the molecules that make up DNA, expressed by the letters A, T, G and C).
Sounds like bullshit.
-    Mutations take place at random.
So what?
They are unconscious
D'oh!
and totally coincidental events
Sigh... Of course.
that impact on perfect structures.
Hahahaha!

Ask him to detect that perfection.

He can't.

-    99% OF MUTATIONS ARE HARMFUL and 1% have no effect.
Pure undiluted bullshit. Most mutations have no effect.
NOT EVEN ONE SINGLE BENEFICIAL MUTATION HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED.
A conceptual attack. It does not deal with reality.

If by "beneficial" you mean anything real (like 'improving the rates of survival/reproduction), then lots of them have been observed.

If he means anything else, tell him to fuck off.
-    It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE
Hahaha! Creationists are incredible funny when they use expressions like 'therefore', or 'ergo', or 'in fact'. xD
for mutations to make organisms more developed
Ask him to measure development.

He can't. Because he's not talking about anything real.

and perfect
Hahahaha! What an ignoramus...
in the way Darwinists maintain.
I would never say 'more perfect'. It's plain stupid.

It's perfect or it's not. There's no 'more perfect'. Just another sample of the poor thinking skills creationists exhibit.

-    The changes caused by mutations can only be of the kind suffered by people at Hiroshima, Nagasaki or Chernobyl; in other words, death, deformation and disease.
Bull. I can show you tetrachromatic women, a superstrong family, another family with high bone density, and another one which doesn't suffer heart attacks.
-    Mutations HAVE NO ABILITY TO ADD A LIFE FORM’S DNA ANY NEW INFORMATION THAT DOES NOT ALREADY EXIST.
Check the thread 'information'.

They either don't mean anything real, or we can show them an increase easily.

-    Mutations can add no information of fins to the genetic structure of a bird, for instance. Mutations are merely breakages and displacements in an organism’s genes.
Name calling. It doesn't deal with reality. It just tags it.
Breakages or displacements in a gene cannot bestow any new information on that gene.
Purely conceptual. They define it, then they happily declare that it can't do something which is purely conceptual too.
The false idea that errors in DNA replication evolve organisms
You can call them what you want. They don't care.

Modern bananas are made from horrible seedy wild bananas and lots of 'copying mistakes that added no new information'. Haha!
-    To claim that a random intervention that will eliminate the extraordinary order in an extraordinarily glorious and giant molecule such as DNA, which carries 1 million pages of information, adds new information to it represents a serious logical fiasco.
So be it. Then it doesn't add information, and such a thing doesn't exist.

Ask him to detect that information, and to measure it.

I told you. He'll shut right up. They always do.



-------
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: 04:29 AM on December 5, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here's a video that might help explain some stuff. Any of the claims sound familiar?


-------
"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: 07:06 AM on December 5, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, that's excellent.

I didn't post it because i didn't feel like going through all the videos in that series to find this one.

I wish Aron Ra made it clear in the title.



-------
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: 1:08 PM on December 5, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hello, howz the debate going? Are there any evolutionary agnostics here?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:37 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How long did it take for apes to turn into man?




-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:28 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The same amount of time it took for birds to become seagulls.


-------
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: 7:48 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How long did it take for apes to turn into man?

Man is an ape.  Try again...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:21 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I mean how many mutations would it take?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:44 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Homo sapiens are apes.

Relax, open your mind, process that information.

Don't come back before doing that.



-------
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: 9:04 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

None, humans are apes.  How many mutations would it take to become a mammal?


-------
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: 9:04 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are saying I am an ape? Like in the zoo? I don't think so.


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:08 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
Hello, howz the debate going?
Presently we are at the recurring point where creationists are left with nothing to say, so they go away for a while.

The next step is when they come back pretending that nothing happened, regurgitating all the old refuted claims.

I give it... Hum... Three and a half days for the first one to show up.

Meanwhile new creationists pop up like random mutations with no new information to add.

You are saying I am an ape?
Of course.
Like in the zoo?
Yes. Like in the zoo, in the jugle, in caves, in trees, in houses, in huts.
I don't think so.
You don't think, but we know.


(Edited by wisp 12/11/2009 at 9:12 PM).


-------
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: 9:09 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are a mammal too.  Like in the zoo.


-------
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: 9:09 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not a knuckle walker, I do not eat bugs or sleep in the bush or beat my chest. And u can convince me that I am?


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:15 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Neither did this chimpanzee.

Are you saying he's not an ape?



-------
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: 9:18 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

huh? neither did this chimp what? Sounds like you guys are jokers not talking serious. Or are you?


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:24 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are saying I am an ape? Like in the zoo? I don't think so.

No, you're an ape just like every other human being that has ever existed.  Don't you understand biology????
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:39 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I originally asked about mutations. How many would it take for a normal chimp you see in the zoo to turn into a human like you see today?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:41 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I originally asked about mutations. How many would it take for a normal chimp you see in the zoo to turn into a human like you see today?

Why would a chimpanzee turn into a human??
How is that evolution???  This is a nonsensical question, it just doesn't make sense.  Once again, you don't understand evolution and biology.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:47 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

well tell me. I thought the reasoning was that humans descended from apes?


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:54 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not a knuckle walker, I do not eat bugs or sleep in the bush or beat my chest.
Neither did this chimpanzee.
huh? neither did this chimp what?
Sigh...

The chimp didn't walk on his knuckles, nor eat bugs, or sleep in the bush or beat his chest.

How many mutations would it take for a fish with 3 seconds worth of memory to turn into you?

Chimpanzees turning into humans...

And then they ask why we assume that creationists are dumb.

well tell me. I thought the reasoning was that humans descended from apes?
That doesn't mean we ceased to be apes.

Seagulls ARE birds.
Humans ARE apes.

So you don't learn either...

We're humans, apes, primates, mammals, animals, eukaryotes. No contradiction there.


(Edited by wisp 12/11/2009 at 9:59 PM).


-------
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: 9:57 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

and we didn't evolve from chimpanzees, so your question is nonsense.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:58 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

AFAIK, we descended from apes, I've heard that time and again. The apes like you see in the old neanderthal depictions where a chimp is at one end, and modern man at the other. So is this an accurate depiction?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 10:00 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:54 PM on December 11, 2009 :
well tell me. I thought the reasoning was that humans descended from apes?


The reasoning is that all primates share a common ancestral line.



-------
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: 10:03 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The apes like you see in the old neanderthal depictions where a chimp is at one end, and modern man at the other. So is this an accurate depiction?

No, it's not correct.  What peer reviewed scientific paper was this depiction in?  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:06 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 10:00 PM on December 11, 2009 :
AFAIK, we descended from apes, I've heard that time and again. The apes like you see in the old neanderthal depictions where a chimp is at one end, and modern man at the other. So is this an accurate depiction?



What if not everything you've heard about evolution was true?



-------
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: 10:08 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We're objectively apes. We're gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebral cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle, with no tail.

You see? I defined apes with using Science instead of dumbness.

It's just a different approach. You should try it.


(Edited by wisp 12/11/2009 at 10:15 PM).


-------
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 December 11, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 10:00 PM on December 11, 2009 :
So is this an accurate depiction?


Try this instead:




-------
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: 10:17 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The apes like you see in the old neanderthal depictions where a chimp is at one end, and modern man at the other. So is this an accurate depiction?
No. It's ignorance.

We don't descend from chimps. Neanderthals don't descend from chimps.

By the way, we don't descend from Neanderthals either.

Bear in mind that you show a complete ignorance on this subject.

That's ok. We were all there. But until you do, please, just ask. Don't try to argue.



-------
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: 10:23 PM on December 11, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, in terms that I can understand. what picture could you point to that man looked like zillions of years ago, in very ancient times? What did we descend from?



-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 10:20 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop,

Look up these species for starters, Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Cro-Magnon. That should give you a good starting point on the current thought of human evolution starting from a few million years ago.


-------
"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: 10:38 AM on December 12, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, I see them promulgated on the web. Pictures and info. How even furthur back in time, what names would we find then?




-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:10 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Try here: http://www.google.com

It has lots of useful info.



-------
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: 11:36 PM on December 12, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From what I see on http://evolution.berkeley.edu it appears that humans had a simian past. And that hominids came from chimps.

[color=maroon]
"How did humans evolve? About six million years ago in Africa, the chimpanzee lineage and our own split. This occurred 20 million years ago. "
[color=black]
Does this sound right?





-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 11:06 AM on December 13, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Porkchop

it appears that humans had a simian past. And that hominids came from chimps.


No, they're saying that chimps and humans share a common ancester.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 11:17 AM on December 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
From what I see on http://evolution.berkeley.edu it appears that humans had a simian past.
Yes, we do. Which isn't strange, since we have a simian present.

Will you keep ignoring it? If you will, what are you doing here? Do you want to learn or not?

We are simian. We are apes. Of course we were simians in the past. This isn't a recent thing.

And that hominids came from chimps.
How did humans evolve? About six million years ago in Africa, the chimpanzee lineage and our own split. This occurred 20 million years ago.
Does this sound right?
No, it doesn't.

"6 million years ago happened 20 million years ago" doesn't sound right to me.

Something tells me that the mistake was yours and not theirs (i have a sixth sense for these things).

And no, it doesn't say that hominids came from chimps. It says that we got divided.

It's like you said that you descend from your cousin.



-------
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: 12:26 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, so at some point beyond 20M years ago, we looked like primates and were knuckle walkers. I am trying to determine if someone would look at early humans and say "yes, that is a primate like you see in the zoo" Am I on the right track?


-------
He who assumes he has gained the world merely through his 5 senses and who loses faith, loses all
 


Posts: 434 | Posted: 1:17 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, you're at gluteus level...
Perhaps you ARE gluteus in disguise.

You don't learn, you don't read, you don't pay attention, you repeat yourself over and over again...

ok, so at some point beyond 20M years ago, we looked like primates
We still do.

Man, we ARE primates!

You can't name any objective and scientific criterion by which we're not. Nobody can.

I am trying to determine if someone would look at early humans and say "yes, that is a primate like you see in the zoo"
Well yeah. There are primates in the zoo, feeding birds, and reptiles, and fish, and cats, and elephants, and other primates too.

Any primate would (if it could) think he's special, and that he belongs to a unique species.

Am I on the right track?
Doesn't seem likely, no.



-------
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: 2:45 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 1:17 PM on December 13, 2009 :
ok, so at some point beyond 20M years ago, we looked like primates and were knuckle walkers. I am trying to determine if someone would look at early humans and say "yes, that is a primate like you see in the zoo" Am I on the right track?


We are still primates in the same sense we are still mammals. Species change over time, and what you see in the zoo is not what was on Earth a million years ago.

With human and chimps, a species that existed 5-7 million years ago branched off into two separate species. Eventually one of those species became chimps, the other eventually became humans.

If you go beyond 7 million years, it usually isn't talked about in regards to human evolution, but evolution of (fill in the blank).


-------
"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: 4:27 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ... 20 21 ... 29 30 ]
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.