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 ... 23 24 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 5:44 PM on December 23, 2009 :
How did a fish get the ability to walk in the first place?

How about how many died trying to breathe out of the water, was that a good idea to attempt that?
Probably alot died, but enough survived to pass on the mutation.  And we've already told you, they evolved lungs while they were still completely aquatic, it helped them while they were living in  the water.

I thought water habitating fish struggle to get back into the water when they find themselves out by flopping to do so.

Yep, they do and leg like fins and lungs would help them get there.


Why would a fish have evolved lungs while living in water? Were they getting ready for their journey onto land? If not, this would be putting the cart before the horse.
AND
if alot of them died trying to leave the water, this would be a BAD idea, committing suicide.



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:58 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why would a fish have evolved lungs while living in water? Were they getting ready for their journey onto land? If not, this would be putting the cart before the horse.

They evolved lungs so they could gulp oxygen from the air in the shallow wetlands and swamps they were living in because the water was becoming less and less oxygenated.  This wasn't in preperation for moving on land (although it worked out that way), it directly benefited the fish while it was living totally in water.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 6:08 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

we can go round and round in circles. If your scenario is true(shallow wetlands and swamps and dried out ponds) why wouldn't the fish have died from the bad conditions or how long did they endure such conditions?, were the swamps perpetually shallow, did not rains replenish them, did they not dry up completely? You assume the swamp was shallow for millions of years, not changing allowing for your scenario. Too many suppositions to make it believable.





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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:35 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You appear to be still making the assumption that this was 1 species of fish evolving in 1 pond. As I said in an earlier post, the Anabantoid fish still have a labyrinth organ which allows them to breathe air but they do not have any structures like specialised fins that allow them to climb out of water. Firstly, I ask, why would a creator give them this specialised organ? Secondly, this shows that further evolution to land dwelling was not required and not selected for.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:38 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

we can go round and round in circles.

Well, you can keep ignoring the evidence...

If your scenario is true(shallow wetlands and swamps and dried out ponds) why wouldn't the fish have died from the bad conditions or how long did they endure such conditions?

I don't understand your misgivings, we know what the conditions were in the late Devonian and we have fossils from that period of fish with leg like fins and lungs, what is your alternate explanation?

were the swamps perpetually shallow, did not rains replenish them, did they not dry up completely? You assume the swamp was shallow for millions of years, not changing allowing for your scenario.

yes, the wetlands, full of tangled vegatation, persisted for millions of years, why do you claim they didn't?

Too many suppositions to make it believable.

And yet, you ignore the evidence that shows these are more than suppositions.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:17 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am to assume that a swamp was perpetually shallow?
You yourself said the conditions are constantly changing and you say a swamp was always shallow, and for millions of years. How could you possibly know this?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 10:36 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from firechild at 7:38 PM on December 23, 2009 :
You appear to be still making the assumption that this was 1 species of fish evolving in 1 pond. As I said in an earlier post, the Anabantoid fish still have a labyrinth organ which allows them to breathe air but they do not have any structures like specialised fins that allow them to climb out of water. Firstly, I ask, why would a creator give them this specialised organ? Secondly, this shows that further evolution to land dwelling was not required and not selected for.


Do not amphibious creatures possess adaptability to live in both water and land?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 10:42 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am to assume that a swamp was perpetually shallow?

Swamps and wetlands are shallow.

You yourself said the conditions are constantly changing and you say a swamp was always shallow, and for millions of years. How could you possibly know this?

How do we know that swamps and wetlands dominated for millions of years?  By studying the fossil history!  Have you bothered to look this up?  You're claiming wetlands couldn't last for extended periods of time based on what...?
We know that they did based on the evidence, like
this....

"One indication of the Late Devonian expansion of wetlands is the first occurrences of coal deposits. (Coal is produced when plant production exceeds decomposition.) While modest by Carboniferous standards, they indicate substantial wetlands production. Another indication is the diversification of arborescent lycopsids (e.g., Cyclostigma and Lepidodendropsis) at the end of the Late Devonian. Presumably, these large plants required a more stable environment than did the generalists plants (e.g., Rhacophyton) that they replaced."

Coal takes many millions of years of plant matter to accumulate, so we can safely say that there were large amounts of wetlands and they persisted for millions of years.  Where's your counter evidence?



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:33 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
wisp
Or thousands of ponds. Those who walked between them should have more offspring.
How did a fish get the ability to walk in the first place?
Easy answer: it didn't.

It wasn't a fish, and they didn't walk in the first place.

A great other deal happened "in the first place".

Would they not have had to breathe out of water after evolving arms and legs  first?
No.
How long that would have taken?
From what to what? You have to be specific. The process took millions of years, and had no clear start or end. Show me two animals in the same evolutionary line and i'll try to tell you the interval.

Until you do, it's not even a real question.

How did the fish know there were other ponds "down the road"?
How does the monkey know that there are fruits in other trees?

Or more complex: How do animals know that they get offspring by copulating?

Well, they don't. They don't need to know.

How about how many died trying to breathe out of the water, was that a good idea to attempt that?
The amount doesn't matter. What matters is the proportion of those who died (or had less offspring for some reason) going out, and those who died (or had less offspring for some reason) not going out.

In any case, your scenario of fish trying to breathe out of the water is idiotic.

I thought water habitating fish struggle to get back into the water when they find themselves out by flopping to do so.
Most do.

And yet you have no point to make.

we can go round and round in circles.
You go in circles. We have explained everything that was relevant. And you don't seem to learn much.
If your scenario is true(shallow wetlands and swamps and dried out ponds) why wouldn't the fish have died from the bad conditions or how long did they endure such conditions?
Lots of them did. Millions of them did. There's no evolution without lots of death. Like with your religion.

And yet, you have no point to make.
were the swamps perpetually shallow, did not rains replenish them, did they not dry up completely?
What if some of them did get replenished sometimes? What if all of them were seasonally flooded? What would change for you? What's your point?

Something tells me there's none.

You assume the swamp was shallow for millions of years, not changing allowing for your scenario.
A single swamp?

I don't think anyone assumes that.


Too many suppositions to make it believable.
You keep imagining our suppositions so you feel you have refuted something, and get to sleep better.

I am to assume that a swamp was perpetually shallow?
I don't know why you assume "a swamp". SwampS ARE shallow. And they DO get flooded. And then they are shallow again.

Why does it matter to you? Are you just going to try the shotgun approach and leave tons of questions hoping that we can't answer some of them?

You yourself said the conditions are constantly changing and you say a swamp was always shallow, and for millions of years.
Did he speak about a single swamp, always shallow for millions of years?

Quote it.

Still, swamps are shallow. What's your point?
How could you possibly know this?
That swamps are shallow?

Look, we have told you how we know plenty of things. Wanna learn more, go study. When you have doubts about something you do know something about, come back. Because the evolutionary scenarios you think Science offers are risible.


(Edited by wisp 12/23/2009 at 11:58 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: 11:50 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok , so I got it now. All mammals came from swamps. We know for certain that there were without a doubt abundance of swamps that fish populated and grew legs & arms while swimming and lungs for breathing air.  This is what I am inferring.

I read that fossil evidence has a reversal in the ‘swim-bladder to lung’ story. Lungs appear to be much more ‘ancient’ than swim-bladders, so by this reasoning, lungs must have evolved into swim-bladders.
Lungs are not needed for survival of a fish are they?
Also I note that going from water to land  a fish would have needed to develop new muscular and skeletal systems to support it's weight. What good would mutating those features do while the fish was still swimming in water?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 12:37 PM on December 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You said you watched the video with the mudskippers. Your questions seem to come from someone who never saw such a thing.


-------
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: 1:03 PM on December 24, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok , so I got it now. All mammals came from swamps. We know for certain that there were without a doubt abundance of swamps that fish populated and grew legs & arms while swimming and lungs for breathing air.

Very good!  This is an important point, lungs and legs evolved while the fish was still aquatic and benefitted the fish while it lived in the water.

I read that fossil evidence has a reversal in the ‘swim-bladder to lung’ story. Lungs appear to be much more ‘ancient’ than swim-bladders, so by this reasoning, lungs must have evolved into swim-bladders.
Lungs are not needed for survival of a fish are they?


Lungs to swim bladder appears to be true based on the evidence.  and yes, all fish don't need lungs to survive.

Also I note that going from water to land  a fish would have needed to develop new muscular and skeletal systems to support it's weight. What good would mutating those features do while the fish was still swimming in water?

Well, legs were useful for the fish in the swamps and wetlands, it could pull itself and crawl through the tangled, vegetation packed water more easily than it ccould swim, so the skeletal structure and muscles had already evolved before they went on land.  check out this video:
tetrapods
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:37 PM on December 24, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 1:37 PM on December 24, 2009 :

Lungs to swim bladder appears to be true based on the evidence.  and yes, all fish don't need lungs to survive.

If swim bladders are more recent, that would mean mutations occured to allow the fish to be better adapted for water, not land.

Well, legs were useful for the fish in the swamps and wetlands, it could pull itself and crawl through the tangled, vegetation packed water more easily than it could swim, so the skeletal structure and muscles had already evolved before they went on land.


WHY would a fish need a highly developed land sketal apparatus while in water in the scenario you just suggested.?






(Edited by porkchop 12/24/2009 at 3:08 PM).


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 3:07 PM on December 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It still needs editing.
If swim bladders are more recent, that would mean mutations occured to allow the fish to be better adapted for water, not land.
No. Mutations don't occur TO anything. They get selected if they have a positive impact on survival and reproduction rates.
WHY would a fish need a highly developed land sketal apparatus while in water in the scenario you just suggested.?
YOU call it that. You're thinking backwards.


(Edited by wisp 12/24/2009 at 3:16 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: 3:12 PM on December 24, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 3:12 PM on December 24, 2009 :
It still needs editing.
If swim bladders are more recent, that would mean mutations occured to allow the fish to be better adapted for water, not land.
No. Mutations don't occur TO anything. They get selected if they have a positive impact on survival and reproduction rates.
WHY would a fish need a highly developed land skeletal apparatus while in water in the scenario you just suggested.?
YOU call it that. You're thinking backwards.


(Edited by wisp 12/24/2009 at 3:16 PM).

A highly developed land skeletal apparatus would be required for the fish to make his debut on the land or else he'd be a "fish out of water" and meet hardship & death. So while in the water, why would he develop such a highly developed skeletal apparatus? I think this is what I'm asking.
Merry Xmas!




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 10:17 PM on December 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A highly developed land skeletal apparatus would be required for the fish to make his debut on the land
Nice... Another expert on everything...

How would you know?

or else he'd be a "fish out of water" and meet hardship & death.
A fish out of the water is exactly what the walking catfish, the lungfish and the mudskipper are.

Go and study them before speaking about hardship and death.

So while in the water, why would he develop such a highly developed skeletal apparatus?
Do you think that fish tend to have, what? An undeveloped skeletal apparatus?

Why don't you tell us what you think?
Merry Xmas!
Oh, you believe that Jesus was born on a 25th of December as well?



-------
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: 10:30 PM on December 24, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 04:30 AM on December 25, 2009 :
Merry Xmas!
Oh, you believe that Jesus was born on a 25th of December as well?[/color]

Hmmm, I don't believe that, but I still wish my family and friends Merry Christmas (and very few (if any) of them are religious in any way, but they will wish me a Merry Christmas too). Just because one person wishes another person season's greetings, doesn't necessarily mean that they believe that Jesus was born on Dec 25th or even that they they are even remotely religious.
Merry Christmas




-------
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: 06:50 AM on December 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Merry many-a-day to you.


-------
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: 12:19 PM on December 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WHY would a fish need a highly developed land sketal apparatus while in water in the scenario you just suggested.?

It wasn't a highly developed land skeletal structure, it was a highly developed water skeletal structure that functioned poorly on land, but even though it worked poorly on land, it did work on land.  As we see from the fossil evidence, it evolved into a highly developed land skeletal structure.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:28 PM on December 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

BEGGING THE QUESTION

Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

Description of Begging the Question

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

  1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
  2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

Examples of Begging the Question

  1. Bill: "God must exist."
     Jill: "How do you know."
     Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
     Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
     Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

  2. "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

  3. "The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."

  4. Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
     Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
     Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
     Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."


He just assumes that it's a "highly developed land skeletal apparatus" and goes from there to prove that, well... That it had a highly developed skeletal apparatus...


-------
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: 9:40 PM on December 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If swim bladders are more recent, that would mean mutations occured to allow the fish to be better adapted for water, not
land.


Yes, some fish became better adapted to a different environment.  Fish that made it to the ocean, which didn't become shallower and didn't become less oxygenated, didn't need an alternate breathing system, so the rudimetry lungs could evolve into swim bladders.  Fish in different environments evolve differently.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:47 PM on December 25, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 1:37 PM on December 24, 2009 :

Also I note that going from water to land  a fish would have needed to develop new muscular and skeletal systems to support it's weight. What good would mutating those features do while the fish was still swimming in water?

Well, legs were useful for the fish in the swamps and wetlands, it could pull itself and crawl through the tangled, vegetation packed water more easily than it could swim, so the skeletal structure and muscles had already evolved before they went on land.


You asked me how I know about some of the things I mentioned? I would ask you how you know:
-swamps have been around for millions of years unchanged( even you contradicted yourself saying "conditions are constantly changing"), Can't have it both ways.
-we know what the conditions were in the late Devonian

Sure a fish  could pull itself and crawl through the tangled, vegetation packed WHILE UNDERWATER. But once one land, it would be too weak. So why would mutations occur to develop a highly developed land skeletal structure WHILE UNDERWATER? I contend catfish were born amphibious to allow them do do what they do now.






(Edited by porkchop 12/26/2009 at 11:03 AM).


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 11:02 AM on December 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

-swamps have been around for millions of years unchanged( even you contradicted yourself saying "conditions are constantly changing"), Can't have it both ways.
Nice. Word tricks.

Equivocation... The silliest of all logical fallacies...

Light can't be dark.
Feathers are light.
Feathers can't be dark.

Porkchop, have you changed since yesterday?

Do deserts change?

What about swamps today. Do they change? They can get periodically flooded without changing the name. Does that sound impossible to you?

Sure a fish  could pull itself and crawl through the tangled, vegetation packed WHILE UNDERWATER. But once one land, it would be too weak.
How weak is "too" weak?

Too weak for what?

So why would mutations occur to develop a highly developed land skeletal structure blah blah blah
Again?

No, man! Mutations don't occur TO anything! They have no purpose or direction!

to develop a highly developed land skeletal structure WHILE UNDERWATER?
Again... It didn't. You just go ahead and call it "highly developed land skeletal structure". The creature doesn't care. We don't either.

Nobody cares about your name-calling.

I contend catfish were born amphibious to allow them do do what they do now.
I don't know what you're saying.



-------
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: 2:37 PM on December 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 11:02 AM on December 26, 2009 :
I contend catfish were born amphibious to allow them do do what they do now.


Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?



-------
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: 4:18 PM on December 26, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think we need to know the meaning behind that assertion first.

Perhaps by "amphibious" he means that they could go on land too.

Then his assertion wouldn't be controversial but superfluous.

If he means "pertaining to the class Amphibia" his assertion is just ignorant.



-------
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: 4:38 PM on December 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

-swamps have been around for millions of years unchanged( even you contradicted yourself saying "conditions are constantly changing"), Can't have it both ways.

Is there only one kind of swamp??  Why can't swamps be changing?  Yes, we know swamps were around for millions of years because we see the evidence in the massive coal deposits from the Devonian period.  What evidence do you have to contradict this?  If you don't have any evidence to contradict this, why do you doubt the evidence we do have.

Sure a fish  could pull itself and crawl through the tangled, vegetation packed WHILE UNDERWATER. But once one land, it would be too weak.

Why would it be too weak?  Sure, it's limbs evolved for pulling itself around underwater, but don't you think it would have a better chance to pull itself around on land then a fish with fins evolved solely for swimming?

I contend catfish were born amphibious to allow them do do what they do now.

Then why don't we see that in the fossil record?  Why do we see tetrapods clearly evolving in the fossil record?  How do you explain clearly transitional fish-ibians like Tiktaalik?  



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:09 PM on December 26, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is so much fun to read. Porkchop seems to be as confused about amphibious evolution as I am about that land mammal that somehow turned into a whale. All your likely scenarios just leave me stone cold while at the same time apparently filling the evolutionist’s heart with hope and reassurance that his faith is not in vain.
Exceedingly odd.

Mutations have no purpose nor direction yet seem to somehow be united in a common purpose related somehow to need (despite Lamarck’s (and Darwin’s) outdated imaginings.)

So did the land come first or the lungs? Did the sea come first or the fins? Did all the fins of the water-based mammal arise together or was it just fortuitous that they happened to develop the fins (fin by fin), the fluke, the lungs, the blowhole –one by one attaining everything they needed underwater once they got there??? It’s a fabulous tale and we are expected to give evidence to show that it is not true.

Don’t you need to show that it is evidentially supportable first?

Demon38 Why do we see tetrapods clearly evolving in the fossil record?


You do? I’ve never watched that. Are you sure? Or do you just find dead bones and imagine the rest?

How do you explain clearly transitional fish-ibians like Tiktaalik?


How do you explain the duck-billed platypus? Where does that fit in?

You really have to believe in evolution to consider Tiktaalik 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: 06:58 AM on December 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you have nothing to say about your many many many many many dodges in the other threads, then you have nothing to say.


-------
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: 08:05 AM on December 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10 at 04:47 AM on December 23, 2009 :
wisp
A fresh start, Lester? Enough time? All forgotten? Same PRATT?
'Fraid not Wisp -no fresh start -just starting from where I left off .
Liar.

(Edited by wisp 12/27/2009 at 08:11 AM).


-------
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: 08:10 AM on December 27, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Demon38 - Why do we see tetrapods clearly evolving in the fossil record?

Lester -
You do? I’ve never watched that. Are you sure? Or do you just find dead bones and imagine the rest?


So Lester, what's your alternate explanation for those fossils showing transitional features that provide apparent adaptation from water to land?  Research has shown there is a DNA pathway to such a transition - regulation by the 'hedgehog' family of genes.  

What explanation does Creationism offer to explain such transitional series of fossils?  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:59 PM on December 27, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:58 AM on December 27, 2009 :
This is so much fun to read. Porkchop seems to be as confused about amphibious evolution as I am about that land mammal that somehow turned into a whale.


You write as if 1. this was not explained to as best it could be and 2. you think it was one animal.


All your likely scenarios just leave me stone cold while at the same time apparently filling the evolutionist’s heart with hope and reassurance that his faith is not in vain.
Exceedingly odd.

I'm sure that anything not relying entirely on the Hebrew Tribal Deity willing things thus and requiring a foreskin offering would leave you that way, but your feelings are irrelevant to the evidence.

Mutations have no purpose nor direction yet seem to somehow be united in a common purpose related somehow to need (despite Lamarck’s (and Darwin’s) outdated imaginings.)

Your inability to undertstand evolution is not evidence against it.


So did the land come first or the lungs? Did the sea come first or the fins? Did all the fins of the water-based mammal arise together or was it just fortuitous that they happened to develop the fins (fin by fin), the fluke, the lungs, the blowhole –one by one attaining everything they needed underwater once they got there??? It’s a fabulous tale and we are expected to give evidence to show that it is not true.

Again, you write as if this has not been discussed at length with you.  As I recall, you made nearly the exact same assertions (presented as 'arguments') and completely ignored any discussion offered to you to try to help you actually understand what the theory indicates.  You simply do not want to understand or perhaps you are incapable.

Don’t you need to show that it is evidentially supportable first?


Comparative anatomy and genetics says it is.
Demon38 Why do we see tetrapods clearly evolving in the fossil record?


You do? I’ve never watched that. Are you sure? Or do you just find dead bones and imagine the rest?


Why do you act this way?

You claim a doctorate in science, yet seem completely incapable opf understanding basic scientific processes.  You seem to believe that anything that is to be believed must be observed in real time - despite not being able ot observe any of the silly myths you accpet as fact. Your application of double standards is exceeded only by your unwillingness to actually understand what you argue against.
How do you explain clearly transitional fish-ibians like Tiktaalik?


How do you explain the duck-billed platypus? Where does that fit in?


Are you for real?
Are you really an evolutionist trying to mkae creationists look like idiots?

Please tell us that you do not really think the bill of a platypus is actually like a duck's bill... Please tell us you are just being trollish..
Please...
You really have to believe in evolution to consider Tiktaalik evidence.

You really have to be a denialist not to.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 5:47 PM on December 27, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 2:37 PM on December 26, 2009 :
-swamps have been around for millions of years unchanged( even you contradicted yourself saying "conditions are constantly changing"), Can't have it both ways.
Nice. Word tricks.

Equivocation... The silliest of all logical fallacies...

Light can't be dark.
Feathers are light.
Feathers can't be dark.

Porkchop, have you changed since yesterday?

Do deserts change?

What about swamps today. Do they change? They can get periodically flooded without changing the name. Does that sound impossible to you?

Sure a fish  could pull itself and crawl through the tangled, vegetation packed WHILE UNDERWATER. But once one land, it would be too weak.
How weak is "too" weak?

Too weak for what?

So why would mutations occur to develop a highly developed land skeletal structure blah blah blah
Again?

No, man! Mutations don't occur TO anything! They have no purpose or direction!

to develop a highly developed land skeletal structure WHILE UNDERWATER?
Again... It didn't. You just go ahead and call it "highly developed land skeletal structure". The creature doesn't care. We don't either.

Nobody cares about your name-calling.

I contend catfish were born amphibious to allow them do do what they do now.
I don't know what you're saying.




I am NOT playing word games. Seems you resort to that tactic when you want to avoid a question.


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:47 PM on December 27, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester's point is that the evolutionists are fabricating or freely introducing descriptions of scenarios to fit their theories. Who knows that swamps lasted long enough with shallow water in order for a fish to develop arms & legs? And lungs too. If the swamps DID NOT last long enough(millions of years for the mutations to take effect) then what happens to the fish to mammals theory?





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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:56 PM on December 27, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:56 PM on December 27, 2009 :
Lester's point is that the evolutionists are fabricating or freely introducing descriptions of scenarios to fit their theories.


If that is lester's point, then we can add 'liar' to the list of accurate descriptors that he has earned here.


Who knows that swamps lasted long enough with shallow water in order for a fish to develop arms & legs?
And lungs too. If the swamps DID NOT last long enough(millions of years for the mutations to take effect) then what happens to the fish to mammals theory?

Please explain the bolded part.



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:22 PM on December 27, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Did not you point out that for a fish to develop arms, legs and lungs and other whatever internal developments, it takes millions of years?

But what about Lester's point? About creating scenarios to fit your theories? I see what he is saying about
"So did the land come first or the lungs" Did I miss a foretold response to that question?


(Edited by porkchop 12/27/2009 at 6:41 PM).


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:39 PM on December 27, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:39 PM on December 27, 2009 :
But what about Lester's point? About creating scenarios to fit your theories?


I don't want to be mean, but to be blunt, that is all YEC apologetics is.

I see what he is saying about
"So did the land come first or the lungs" Did I miss a foretold response to that question?


I think the problem is that you have it in your mind that one day the fish were in the water and the next there was no water so they were on land. Environments (for the most part) are not so quick to change. The environments change very slowly, much like how going from species to species to species is a long journey. The adaptations the fish experienced to go on land co-evolved with the environment around them.


-------
"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: 8:27 PM on December 27, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I KNOW it takes millions of years so I am not in the mindset that you think ;
" one day the fish were in the water and the next there was no water so they were on land" I understand that.

My bone of contention is the theory that fish developed arms,legs, and all other land dwelling features by virtue of  their "swampy environment". That is they foraged in shallow water among the weeds which gave rise to limbs. Is this the theory being put forward by you folks?




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:52 PM on December 27, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:52 PM on December 27, 2009 :
I KNOW it takes millions of years so I am not in the mindset that you think ;
" one day the fish were in the water and the next there was no water so they were on land" I understand that.


My mistake then.

My bone of contention is the theory that fish developed arms,legs, and all other land dwelling features by virtue of  their "swampy environment". That is they foraged in shallow water among the weeds which gave rise to limbs. Is this the theory being put forward by you folks?


What do you mean by "you folks"? Laymen usually don't make up these 'theories', trained scientists who work in the field do. But anyone can look up the research done by these scientists and understand the basics. As far as I know, most people here are laymen.

If you understand that it took millions of years, and that the creatures evolved with the slowly changing environment, why would it matter if it was done in a swamp, lake, or any other place. What exactly is your objection to the idea?


-------
"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: 9:21 PM on December 27, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
I am NOT playing word games. Seems you resort to that tactic when you want to avoid a question.
What question? The one that i invalidated? I did answer it.

You did not answer my valid ones, even though you quoted EVERYTHING (really, man, easy on the quotes).

What if i ask you the color of the beard on your god's face? What would you answer?

Your question was "So why would mutations occur to develop a highly developed land skeletal structure WHILE UNDERWATER?" I did answer it (and you quoted it, silly). The answer is: It didn't.

You just go ahead and call it "highly developed land skeletal structure".

My bone of contention is the theory that fish developed arms,legs, and all other land dwelling features by virtue of  their "swampy environment".
That's not a theory, but a hypothesis.
That is they foraged in shallow water among the weeds which gave rise to limbs. Is this the theory being put forward by you folks?
I don't know much about it. It seems reasonable. But no, i'm not putting that hypothesis forward. I'd need to learn more about it before i give my opinion.



-------
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: 12:58 AM on December 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer 27
The adaptations the fish experienced to go on land co-evolved with the environment around them.


So, did the environment induce mutations that happened to be suitable for an animal moving onto land? Was this ‘adaptation’ by mutation in response to the environment or did they just happen to be appropriate to the environment that the animal had moved into?

Porkchop
That is they foraged in shallow water among the weeds which gave rise to limbs. Is this the theory being put forward by you folks?


They will probably say you don’t understand evolution properly but that is just for want of a better way to put this little miracle.

Fencer 27
Laymen usually don't make up these 'theories', trained scientists who work in the field do.


Do what….make it all up…. You’re right; but nobody was there so it really doesn’t matter who is responsible for making it up, imagination is king.

If you understand that it took millions of years, and that the creatures evolved with the slowly changing environment


‘With the ….environment’ –does that mean in response to the environmental changes?? Since they needed legs in order to get around on the land, how did random mutations manage that? Was it lucky?

Wisp
Your question was "So why would mutations occur to develop a highly developed land skeletal structure WHILE UNDERWATER?" I did answer it (and you quoted it, silly). The answer is: It didn't.


‘It didn’t’ is a great escape kind of an answer that tells us nothing. If ‘it didn’t’, then what did happen. Please explain.

I'd need to learn more about it before i give my opinion.


I was under the impression that you understood the process in general –why hesitate now? Aren’t you the one who claims that non-evolutionists don’t understand how it works and that that is their fundamental problem?
Come on Wisp, give it a bash!



-------
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: 10:29 AM on December 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:39 PM on December 27, 2009 :
Did not you point out that for a fish to develop arms, legs and lungs and other whatever internal developments, it takes millions of years?

Not that I am aware of.  What internal organs does a fish have that a mammal does not, and are the differences in 'kind' or in degree?


But what about Lester's point? About creating scenarios to fit your theories?

'Creating' a scenario that incorporates what is understood is called inferrence.  

I see what he is saying about
"So did the land come first or the lungs" Did I miss a foretold response to that question?


I don't see what he is saying at all.  Is he referring solely to the fish-tetrapod transition, or in general?
Lester has a history of tossing our non-sequiturs and red herrings when his prefabricated questions-presented-as-evidence stops fooling people.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:33 PM on December 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:29 AM on December 28, 2009 :
Fencer 27
The adaptations the fish experienced to go on land co-evolved with the environment around them.


So, did the environment induce mutations that happened to be suitable for an animal moving onto land?

No, depending on what you mean by environment.  I know you will never say, however.
Was this ‘adaptation’ by mutation in response to the environment or did they just happen to be appropriate to the environment that the animal had moved into?

The latter, most likely.  There is no real evidence of mutations occurring in 'response' to something like the local climate.

Porkchop
That is they foraged in shallow water among the weeds which gave rise to limbs. Is this the theory being put forward by you folks?


They will probably say you don’t understand evolution properly but that is just for want of a better way to put this little miracle.

Actually, it is pretty cl;ear that PC does not understand the issue very well, likely because his orientation to evolution was via creationist propaganda.  
Funny how you deride this transition as a little miracle, yet you have no doubt whatsoever that the BIG, evidence-free magic performed by your preferred deity really happened nomore than 10,000 years ago, despite evidence to the contrary.

Fencer 27
Laymen usually don't make up these 'theories', trained scientists who work in the field do.


Do what….make it all up…. You’re right; but nobody was there so it really doesn’t matter who is responsible for making it up, imagination is king.

Is it really the position of a doctorater-holding scientist like you that one actually needs to observe an event in order to understand that it occurred and how it occurred?
If so, I have to wonder why you accept Genesis.

If you understand that it took millions of years, and that the creatures evolved with the slowly changing environment


‘With the ….environment’ –does that mean in response to the environmental changes??

No.

Since they needed legs in order to get around on the land, how did random mutations manage that? Was it lucky?

Lungfish do not have legs, yet they get around on land.  Snakes no longer have legs, they do fine.  The pectoral and pelvic girdles as well as the fin support structures in fossil (as well as extant) fish show a clear homology to modern vertebrate limbs.

As you claim knowledge of anatomy, I would gladly discuss it with you in detail, though you have an easily documentable tendency to stop replying in threads in which technical scientific language is employed.  For some odd reason.

Wisp
Your question was "So why would mutations occur to develop a highly developed land skeletal structure WHILE UNDERWATER?" I did answer it (and you quoted it, silly). The answer is: It didn't.


‘It didn’t’ is a great escape kind of an answer that tells us nothing. If ‘it didn’t’, then what did happen. Please explain.


Perhaps the non-creationists should boycott answering the 'questions' of creationists until they actually START responding to our queries with something a bit more than dodges, insults, obfuscation, and red herrings, when they 'reply' at all.

I'd need to learn more about it before i give my opinion.


I was under the impression that you understood the process in general –why hesitate now?

Perhaps because humble folk realize that understanding a basic process is not sufficient to discuss specific applications of the process?  
I understand the basics of 2-stroke engine production, but I would not want to try to explain how an 8hp Briggs and Stratton lawnmower engine is made.

Aren’t you the one who claims that non-evolutionists don’t understand how it works and that that is their fundamental problem?


Aren't you the one that claims a science-related doctorate yet relies on pathetic disinformation-filled creationist books - like that one written by that physician-moron Werner that wonders why, if humans evolved from apes, there arew still apes -  for your science information?



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 1:50 PM on December 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
You’re right; but nobody was there so it really doesn’t matter who is responsible for making it up, imagination is king.


wisp
Your question was "So why would mutations occur to develop a highly developed land skeletal structure WHILE UNDERWATER?" I did answer it (and you quoted it, silly). The answer is: It didn't.
‘It didn’t’ is a great escape kind of an answer that tells us nothing.
It tells us that it didn't, silly. =D

Your turn to answer. Tell me, without any great escapes, what's the color of the beard on your god's face?

Hahaha! You lose. You should be used to that.

If ‘it didn’t’, then what did happen. Please explain.
Lots of things, i'm sure.

And no, i won't explain anything to you. You dodge my answers. You play dumb. You never correct yourself.

Here is one of the many dozens of things you have dodged:


You deserve no more answers.

You said you weren't making a fresh start. That you would continue with the discussion. You're a liar, Lester.

I'd need to learn more about it before i give my opinion.
I was under the impression that you understood the process in general
Yeap.
–why hesitate now?
Because the question was specific?

Aren’t you the one who claims that non-evolutionists don’t understand how it works
Yes.
and that that is their fundamental problem?
No.
Come on Wisp, give it a bash!
Come on, Lester! Address your many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many dodges!



-------
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: 7:19 PM on December 28, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There seems to be an amt of hostility and wild tangents going on here. Is this not supposed to be a debate forum? Are we here to call others liars?

Anyway, I am trying to stay on track here to put a point to rest. I have read to assume that all mammals came from fish, is this true?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:48 PM on December 28, 2009 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 12:58 AM on December 28, 2009 :
porkchop
I am NOT playing word games. Seems you resort to that tactic when you want to avoid a question.
What question? The one that i invalidated? I did answer it.

You did not answer my valid ones, even though you quoted EVERYTHING (really, man, easy on the quotes).

What if i ask you the color of the beard on your god's face? What would you answer?

Your question was "So why would mutations occur to develop a highly developed land skeletal structure WHILE UNDERWATER?" I did answer it (and you quoted it, silly). The answer is: It didn't.

You just go ahead and call it "highly developed land skeletal structure".

My bone of contention is the theory that fish developed arms,legs, and all other land dwelling features by virtue of  their "swampy environment".
That's not a theory, but a hypothesis.
That is they foraged in shallow water among the weeds which gave rise to limbs. Is this the theory being put forward by you folks?
I don't know much about it. It seems reasonable. But no, i'm not putting that hypothesis forward. I'd need to learn more about it before i give my opinion.



How would I know about the beard on God's face? what color was the beard on Ben Franklin's grandfather's face while ur asking silly questions?

if mutations did not begat highly developed land skeletal structure on the fish, how were they able to transition out of the water and onto land and survive the nasty elements, including gravity?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:33 PM on December 28, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Man, easy on the quotes. You don't need to quote things you won't address.

porkchop
There seems to be an amt of hostility and wild tangents going on here.
Yes. I am hostile towards dishonesty.

And tangents (the new ones) happen because Lester claims to have come back to continue the debate he abandoned long ago.

So what? Your participation in this forum started with a tangent. Or are you going to tell me that your post had anything to do with "numbers not in evolutionists favor"?

Is this not supposed to be a debate forum?
Rhetorical.
Are we here to call others liars?
Only the liars.

But i don't just say it. I can back it up. It's easily demonstrable that Lester is dishonest, and an outright liar.

I only say it regarding things i can demonstrate. I didn't say it when he claimed to have a real PhD, even when there are few chances that it's true.

Anyway, I am trying to stay on track here to put a point to rest.
Your track is tangential to begin with. I have no problems with that. I'm just saying (since you seem to have a problem with tangents).

I have read to assume that all mammals came from fish, is this true?
My English isn't great. Sorry. I don't know what "read to assume" means.

How would I know about the beard on God's face?
The right answer was "God isn't a human. He has no beard."
what color was the beard on Ben Franklin's grandfather's face while ur asking silly questions?
He had two grandfathers.

So you realize that my question was silly. GOOD!
Now go one step further and realize the same about your question.

if mutations did not begat highly developed land skeletal structure on the fish, how were they able to transition out of the water and onto land and survive the nasty elements, including gravity?
First of all, mutations don't do anything like that on their own. You need Natural Selection.

Second, easy answer: it's not that hard.

How many pictures of fish out of the water do you need before you realize this simple fact?

Anyway, here are your dodges:

PORKCHOP'S DODGES


What question? The one that i invalidated? I did answer it.

You did not answer my valid ones, even though you quoted EVERYTHING (really, man, easy on the quotes).
You ignored that too. Don't quote things you won't address.

Porkchop, have you changed since yesterday?

Do deserts change?

What about swamps today. Do they change? They can get periodically flooded without changing the name. Does that sound impossible to you?


Sure a fish  could pull itself and crawl through the tangled, vegetation packed WHILE UNDERWATER. But once one land, it would be too weak.
How weak is "too" weak?

Too weak for what?


So why would mutations occur to develop a highly developed land skeletal structure blah blah blah
Again?

No, man! Mutations don't occur TO anything! They have no purpose or direction!


My bone of contention is the theory that fish developed arms,legs, and all other land dwelling features by virtue of  their "swampy environment".
That's not a theory, but a hypothesis.


You seem to be another Lester. I haven't caught you lying yet though.

(Edited by wisp 12/28/2009 at 10:39 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: 10:34 PM on December 28, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
There seems to be an amt of hostility and wild tangents going on here.
Yes. I am hostile towards dishonesty.


Actually Wisp hates me for not coming around to agreeing with him. He’s a master of words and regularly attempts to bog me down in long screeds of them. I prefer to remain free and go where I feel I want to be. When Wisp mentions my many, many….. ad infinitum dodges, what he really means is ‘can we get off this topic here and get back to what I can handle.’ The answer is ‘go back and speak to yourself Wisp and I will go wherever I feel inclined to go.’

As for dishonesty, you are a manipulator and by calling me dishonest, you attempt to cow me into doing what you would prefer.
(cow –to frighten into submission or obedience) – sorry Wisp, not today.

But i don't just say it. I can back it up. It's easily demonstrable that Lester is dishonest, and an outright liar.

I only say it regarding things i can demonstrate. I didn't say it when he claimed to have a real PhD


Nice Wisp –come with your demonstration, you fool yourself. As for me claiming to have a PhD, I never said that; Derwood the all-knowing did. I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. –the rest is your lack of attention to detail. In effect what I am trying to say is that I have just demonstrated that you are dishonest and an outright liar – see demonstration:

Wisp “he claimed to have a real PhD”


No I didn’t. That’s why they call lawyers liars, it’s a twist.

I rest my case.

Speaking of dodges Wisp – did the animal leave the water first or accidentally develop land friendly mutations first? Did the other land-friendly mutations follow accidentally or did the environment cause them to coincidentally arise?

Stick to the topic please.
   





-------
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: 03:05 AM on December 29, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually Wisp hates me
Nah.
for not coming around to agreeing with him.
Nah. Your dishonesty bugs me.
I prefer to remain free and go where I feel I want to be.
Then you deserve no answers.
When Wisp mentions my many, many….. ad infinitum dodges, what he really means is ‘can we get off this topic here and get back to what I can handle.’
No. It means "You were defeated in a certain topic, and now you're playing dumb."
The answer is ‘go back and speak to yourself Wisp and I will go wherever I feel inclined to go.’
Then why ask me questions?

I get it. You're not bound to answer to anything. You're not bound to reply. You're free as a bird. You can go wherever you want, answer to whatever you please.

By not responding you're not responsible. You can say whatever you please. You don't need to defend it. You don't need to stop mentioning it when it has been refuted.

So... What are you doing here?

As for dishonesty, you are a manipulator and by calling me dishonest, you attempt to cow me into doing what you would prefer.
No. Just admit defeat in one topic, correct yourself, and we can move on.

Will you ever correct yourself? Admit an error? Address your dodges? Say something smart for a change?
sorry Wisp, not today.
...

But i don't just say it. I can back it up. It's easily demonstrable that Lester is dishonest, and an outright liar.

I only say it regarding things i can demonstrate. I didn't say it when he claimed to have a real PhD
Nice Wisp –come with your demonstration,
Again?

I've done it many times already...

You said you understood homology. You didn't (you thought it had something to do with convergent evolution). You didn't admit your mistake. You lied.

You constantly claim that Evolution is about random chance. You know it's not. You lied.

You claim that you don't respond to certain things because you have little time, and yet you answer lots of crap about "No, you're deluded! No, you! The faith is all yours! It's a religion!! Random chance!!" over and over again while refusing to say "yes" or "no" to some simple questions.

You lie, Lester.

(...)since convergent evolution does NOT lead to homology.
According to people who believe in convergent evolution, it does lead to homologous structures by pure chance mutations in different lines altogether.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

From Wiki:

Homology
In evolutionary biology, homology refers to any similarity between characteristics of organisms that is due to their shared ancestry.


Will you correct yourself? No, you won't.

So stubborn...

You said
Well when you consider how often homologous structures are apparently unrelated (as evidenced in so-called convergent evolution)
Convergent evolution is NOT evidence that homologous structures are unrelated.
You're saying that we can demonstrate that apples don't have seeds because balloons don't have them.


You show your dishonesty every time you pretend to believe that we say that things evolve by random chance.

you fool yourself.
I don't see it.

I saw you fool yourself lots of times. Like when you thought you understood what "phenotype" means. You thought it was limited to morphology.

I don't even want to laugh at you about this. It would be so much easier if you just admitted your mistakes (like truthlover did, showing a much greater love for truth than you ever will).

As for me claiming to have a PhD, I never said that; Derwood the all-knowing did.
Oh...
I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. –the rest is your lack of attention to detail.
Not so. It's my poor English and my lack of knowledge about the difference between "a doctorate" and "a PhD". I thought they were the same thing.

"M.D." confuses me too. Edit: Perhaps it stands for "Medical degree".

Oh, and military rank.

And yeah, when derwood said you claimed that i thought it was a confirmation of my notion that they were the same thing.

I was wrong. I admit it. I take it back. I didn't mean to say anything false.

I did well not to use it as a demonstration of your lies then, since you never said it.

In effect what I am trying to say is that I have just demonstrated that you are dishonest and an outright liar – see demonstration:

Wisp “he claimed to have a real PhD”


No I didn’t. That’s why they call lawyers liars, it’s a twist.

I rest my case.
You have no case. I never lie. You don't believe i did. If you say you do, you're lying yet again.

And if by any chance you're not lying about the doctorate and the "background", you're still dishonestly implying to have a degree of knowledge on these matters which is much higher than you actually do.

I know much more than you about these things, and i still wouldn't dare to make a fool of myself implying to be knowledgeable.

Speaking of dodges Wisp
What?? Will you address yours????
– did the animal leave the water first or accidentally develop land friendly mutations first?
Oh... Don't make me think you'll address them! You disappoint me when you don't. =(

What does this have to do with dodges?

I haven't dodged anything. Ever.

Let's see... You present two choices, and both are stupid.

You are free as a bird, but you want to force me to choose between two moronic statements.

Lester, Evolution doesn't happen by chance. You're permanently showing either a learning disability or plain dishonesty.

Did the other land-friendly mutations follow accidentally or did the environment cause them to coincidentally arise?

Stick to the topic please.
"Co-incidental" is better than "accidental, but still no.

The environment doesn't control the rate of mutation, nor gives them directions. Natural selection promotes those mutations that are useful in that environment.

So... I have to stick to a topic, while you're free as a bird. Right?

Why the double standard?

When i answer to you, and you can't refute it, you play dumb and pretend it never happened.

Like here:

How did the nostrils move to the top of the head from the end of the nose?
In evolutionary time? Like this:


In embryologic developmental time? Like this:




Your turn now. Address your dodges.


Or here:
Lester
Well so you say, but Australian scientists have a display at Kangaroo island that shows that a dog or dog-like animal evolved into a sea lion while scientists at Howard university in Washington DC think that a bear evolved into a sea lion.
Ah, Lester, Lester... You see much difference?

Here, let me show you:



Or here:
wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
wisp
Lester
The TOE requires life to come from non-living chemicals, it’s an atheistic system
Lester
The ToE, on the other hand assumes abiogenesis and no role for God, so it is an atheistic philosophy.
No more than the Theory of Gravity. And you don't fight it.
There’s nothing atheistic about the theory of gravity.
It doesn't contemplate any gods. Just like the ToE.
And it is just as much a product of God’s as is life.
I agree.
By your 'and' it looks like we've come to an agreement on this issue. Both theories are equally atheistic.
Neither is.
Exactly! Finally!

So, just to be clear (i really hope you don't back away from this realization), you do acknowledge that you were wrong when you wrote the first phrase, right? Or did you just lose track and didn't know what you were talking about?


Or here:
There’s not a line or a gap
The fossil record has big gaps all over
There’s not a line or a gap
The fossil record has big gaps all over
There’s not a line or a gap
The fossil record has big gaps all over
There’s not a line or a gap
The fossil record has big gaps all over
There’s not a line or a gap
The fossil record has big gaps all over


Or here:
vestigiality -garbage,
Does Yahweh produce garbage?

Didn't you say that you had no problem with loss of function? That you were ok with the legless lizard's vestigiality?

Let's see...
Here:

Posted by Lester10, at 07:24 AM on April 5, 2009
How did i guess that the legless lizard would have vestigial legs when i was a teen and didn't know about legless lizards OR vestigial limbs? My correct guess made my trust in that consensus stronger.
Nobody has any problem with loss if information due to mutational corruption. The lizard's original information was corrupted.
You admitted that vestigiality was possible.

Gotcha! =D


You ask for transitionals between unicellular to multicellular and i give you this:




And you play dumb.

You say that you don't reject scientists due to your preconceptions (that, just like me, you only ask for brains and knowledge). Then you go ahead and do exactly that with Dunning and Kruger.

You dismissed them for their evolutionary stories. You dismissed them for being evolutionists.

You didn't know what you were talking about. They are social scientists.

I pointed it out to you, and you played dumb.

You say that a process in which one of the elements are random is essentially random. I ask you if you'd say the same thing about a hand of poker. You play dumb.

Then you wait till someone starts a new thread, and you make your debut. A fresh start. You can ask the same questions again (as if they haven't been already answered), or new ones (forgetting the answered old ones).

You dishonestly play dumb all the time, and you lie from time to time.



-------
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: 12:54 PM on December 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:05 AM on December 29, 2009 :
As for me claiming to have a PhD, I never said that; Derwood the all-knowing did.


Why do you continue to project your own egotism onto others?


I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. –the rest is your lack of attention to detail.

I took courses in physics, chemistry (organic and inorganic), biochemistry, psychology, pathology, genetics, etc., too - but I don't think I've ever tried to embellish my area of expertise by claiming to have a "background" in all of that.  
So, no PhD (why did it take you so long to clarify?) - that leaves what - an EdD?  

And with such a background, one has to wonder why you REFUSE to actually discuss any topics in which you claim to have a 'background' in.  I will gladly discuss anatomical issues with you - I've offered before and you, as is your calling card, abandoned the thread.

Will you never put your money where your mouth is?

In effect what I am trying to say is that I have just demonstrated that you are dishonest and an outright liar – see demonstration:

Wisp “he claimed to have a real PhD”


No I didn’t. That’s why they call lawyers liars, it’s a twist.


It is no lie.  You claimed a doctorate and gave no more information, in common parlance, 'doctorate' means PhD.  We actually assumed you claimed ot have earned a better degree than you now let on.  

Stick to the topic please.


Like you did with 'information', 'genetics disproves evolution', etc.?
   

Incredible.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:23 PM on December 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 03:05 AM on December 29, 2009 :
He’s a master of words and regularly attempts to bog me down in long screeds of them.

TRANSLATION:

When therse evos start using field-specific terminology, or want to discuss things beyond the level of a soundbite, or actually provide explanations to the 'challenges' I present to them, I really cannot hang around and try to discuss it because I will be exposed as the credential-embellishing fraud that I am.


I prefer to remain free and go where I feel I want to be. When Wisp mentions my many, many….. ad infinitum dodges, what he really means is ‘can we get off this topic here and get back to what I can handle.’ The answer is ‘go back and speak to yourself Wisp and I will go wherever I feel inclined to go.’


TRANSLATION:

I am free to bring up topics that I claim to have in-depth knowledge of - and that I claim supports my mythology - but when the evos start showing how wrong I am, I'm outta there!

WISP, FENCER, ETC. - Might I suggest that instead of answering Lester's posts with new information, that we simply copy and paste the last posts we wrote that Lester ran away from.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:29 PM on December 29, 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 ... 23 24 ... 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.