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 ... 29 30 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 06:07 AM on February 9, 2010 :Me too. Like "probable".

"Possible" can have any probability, no matter how low it is. I thought "plausible" meant it had some probability worthy of consideration.[/color]


I would probably agree with this, although I would place plausible somewhere between possible and probable. Something with 40% chance of being correct is certainly plausible but not necessarily probable (depending on the number of other possibilities and their probabilities). 1% chance of being true = possible, 30% chance = plausible, 60% chance = probable.



 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 8:12 PM on February 8, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would have agreed wholeheartedly, but the definition derwood posted doesn't.

If appearance is the issue, then it might have an actual probability of 0% and still be plausible.

Well, actually you would need to define "appearance". Haha!

If it appears as probable, but it's actually impossible, then i had incomplete data.

If i had incomplete data, then, to me, it WAS probable. Because probability isn't completely objective. It depends on the given information, which varies from person to person.



-------
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: 11:51 AM on February 11, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I guess we're at a dead end for the topic of a fish walking out of water and becoming a land mammal, It's hard to convince me of that.
Equally puzzling are 2 more scenarios which I will present since you folks love a challenge. The one for now is what steps did a land mammal such as a cow or bear or deer(depending on where you read it) to begin living life as an aquatic animal to eventually become a whale?


(Edited by porkchop 2/11/2010 at 7:24 PM).


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:22 PM on February 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I guess we're at a dead end for the topic of a fish walking out of water and becoming a land mammal, It's hard to convince me of that.
We knew all along.

But this is objective:

You asked the same questions over and over again not caring much for the answers (like your question about the drying skin, which we had to dismiss lots of times, since it was your repeated straw man).

You had problems with fish who didn't lay eggs anymore. We showed you several, and the step in between (even though nobody said such a thing actually happened in our evolutionary line). You shut up.

You said "bold assumptions" about temperature. Apoapsis showed you a chart of temperatures. You remain silent to this date.

I showed you this:

You shut up.

You asked
Now did the toes form at the same time the leg was growing and/or do we have fossils showing the legs without toes?
I didn't know wht you meant, but i showed this:

And you shut up.

You requested some "good mutations". Apoapsis and i showed you. You shut up.

And so many other things!

We dismissed each and every single "problem" you presented (you can try to refute me if you want).

Equally puzzling are 2 more scenarios which I will present since you folks love a challenge.
Can you start a thread for each one of them?

This thread is too long already. And order is nice.

The one for now is what steps did a land mammal such as a cow or bear or deer(depending on where you read it) to begin living life as an aquatic animal to eventually become a whale?
Ok, i'll start it for you.


(Edited by wisp 2/11/2010 at 7:53 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: 7:41 PM on February 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here's the new thread.

You just have to click.

http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=61292 << Click.



-------
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: 8:01 PM on February 11, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


You said "bold assumptions" about temperature. Apoapsis showed you a chart of temperatures. You remain silent to this date.

I showed you this:

You shut up.

You asked
Now did the toes form at the same time the leg was growing and/or do we have fossils showing the legs without toes?
I didn't know wht you meant, but i showed this:

And you shut up.


First of all I said I cannot respond to ALL quotes and responses coming my way, WHAT PART of that do you not understand. huh?
You show me a put together skeleton of a creature and expect me to believe it is all the evidence I need to believe.
Am I to believe temperatures where constant for epoch upon epoch because Apoapsis says so or where ever he quoted it from. This is all the evidence I need?




-------
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 February 11, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 8:01 PM on February 11, 2010 :
Here's the new thread.

You just have to click.

http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=61292 << Click.



I can't click on it, but clicking here should work.


-------
"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: 8:54 PM on February 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

First of all I said I cannot respond to ALL quotes and responses coming my way, WHAT PART of that do you not understand. huh?
Oh, i understand very well.

You don't respond to evidence. You're more interested in your own questions. You don't care about the answers.

You show me a put together skeleton of a creature and expect me to believe it is all the evidence I need to believe.
Not at all.

You ask a question and i give you a pictorial answer.

You asked:
After all, a leg would have to mutate piecemeal not in one functional well put together whole?
And i said...

Like this:


I didn't say it was evidence.

You see? Now is one of those times when you shut up.

Am I to believe temperatures where constant for epoch upon epoch because Apoapsis says so or where ever he quoted it from. This is all the evidence I need?
I don't know what you "need". But you just shut up.

You could ask "Where can i find out more about how those average temperatures were deduced?", if you actually care.

And if you don't, then don't pretend to.

You just don't know what else to doubt. Now even temperature is an "issue".

If you care about it, inform yourself. If you don't, stop trying to use 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: 9:06 PM on February 11, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:52 PM on February 11, 2010 :


Am I to believe temperatures where constant for epoch upon epoch because Apoapsis says so or where ever he quoted it from.


Do you have a better estimate that we can discuss?  Please present it.


(Edited by Apoapsis 2/12/2010 at 04:06 AM).


-------
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: 04:05 AM on February 12, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The pneumonics in their heads make them think that their nothing is always worth more than our many things.


-------
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: 04:31 AM on February 12, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:22 PM on February 11, 2010 :
Well, I guess we're at a dead end for the topic of a fish walking out of water and becoming a land mammal,


Strawman caricatures are dead ends, aren't they?


It's hard to convince me of that.

Oh, well, then it must not have happened and the TROO answer is that an anthropomorphic superbeing willed them into existence.  Don't need no evidence for that.

Equally puzzling are 2 more scenarios which I will present since you folks love a challenge. The one for now is what steps did a land mammal such as a cow or bear or deer(depending on where you read it) to begin living life as an aquatic animal to eventually become a whale?


'It' never did.  Populations evolve, individuals mutate.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:54 AM on February 12, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 8:54 PM on February 6, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 4:46 PM on February 6, 2010 :

Can you tell me about the  London Underground Mosquito?


Google is your friend.


By night, Byrne scavenged grim subterranean puddles for mosquito larvae. By day, she lurked aboveground in tony gardens and backyards, collecting specimens from water-filled buckets and beery vats of compost. Taking her larval captives--C. pipiens from upstairs and C. molestus from downstairs--she returned to the lab to raise them.

As adults, Byrne's subjects proved fascinating. Although the two varieties look identical, their habits differ sharply. C. pipiens hibernates in winter; C. molestus breeds year-round in the warm subway, but it cannot survive the cold. C. pipiens must swarm in the open before mating, whereas C. molestus thrives in confined spaces. When Byrne crossbred the two varieties, none produced viable eggs--suggesting that C. molestus is reproductively isolated, the traditional signature of a new species. (Given the great differences in their behavior, Byrne notes, C. pipiens and C. molestus probably rarely meet or mate "in the wild.")

Analyzing the DNA, Byrne and Nichols found that different colonies of the underground mosquitoes are more genetically similar to one another than to their aboveground brethren. A specimen of C. molestus discovered at Euston, on the Victoria line, is more closely related to a specimen found at Finsbury Park, miles away on the same line, than it is to a visibly identical specimen of C. pipiens captured just upstairs at Euston. In short, subterranean sites are being established by other underground mosquitoes, not by mosquitoes from above. How do the mosquitoes spread through the Underground? "We think that the trains act as pistons, pushing cushions of air"--and mosquitoes--"ahead of them," Nichols says.

And the insects continue to evolve. Byrne and Nichols have identified three genetically distinct subvarieties of C. molestus, each one unique to a different subway line: Victoria, Bakerloo, and Central. The other lines of the Underground probably harbor subvarieties of their own, Byrne adds, "and I'm sure they exist in sewers, though I've not been to look."


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_110/ai_70770157/






-------
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: 9:36 PM on February 28, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is a chance he'll remember this time.

With the fish and the moisture thing it took him like a dozen times though, so you never know.



-------
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: 9:55 PM on February 28, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 08:32 AM on March 7, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 05:35 AM on March 7, 2009 :
We know it doesn’t work on rocks of known age –why then is it the geologist’s favoured technique? Just who is resorting to ‘delusional bollocks??


OK, one more time.  The article you cited was not dating the lava.  It was dating inclusions.

Suppose I build a wall tomorrow out of bricks I salvaged from an old building.  If some of the date stamps on the bricks say 1888, how old is the wall?  It's the same concept.  If I date the mortar, it will come out young, if I date the bricks, they will be old.

You have cited the paper, it does not say what you are claiming it to say.






-------
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: 06:47 AM on April 1, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester seems to think his "evidence" was ignored, but I never saw a response to the fact that the article he references wasn't dating lava, it was dating inclusions.

Quote from Apoapsis at 07:46 AM on March 4, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 02:37 AM on March 4, 2009 :


John G Funkhouser and John J. Naughton "Radiogenic helium and argon in ultramafic inclusions from Hawaii"
JPR73 p4601-7 Never heard their names.


So they weren't dating lava, they were dating inclusions.  You've been snookered by someone you trusted.  Many have left the faith when they find out that creationism is a tissue of lies.  Sad really.






-------
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: 06:54 AM on April 1, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:




-------
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: 10:12 PM on May 25, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Talking about numbers...


-------
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: 9:59 PM on May 29, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Many of us know that the majority of inmates in western prisons are christians. This site states that atheists make up only around 2% of the populations of American prisons).

Would i imply that correlation amounts to causation?
Nah.

I believe both have a single cause: ignorance.



-------
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: 07:17 AM on May 30, 2010 | IP
SuperLoz

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Would i imply that correlation amounts to causation?
Nah.



Of course not. If there's one thing intelligently minded, scientifically thinking people learn from an early age it's that correlation does not imply causation.

No surprise Creationists think otherwise.



 


Posts: 36 | Posted: 11:41 AM on May 30, 2010 | 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 ... 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.