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
     Creationism in schools
       Why creationism will never be taught in public schools

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:57 AM on October 4, 2009 :
Mt St Helens eruption –dated up to 2,8 billion years /Reality 1980


Are you sure you plagiarized this correctly?  Mike Riddle says 2.8 million.

If a house blows up tomorrow, and I find a brick marked 1866, how old is the brick?



-------
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: 9:29 PM on October 4, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, are you sure you're not being misled?  You feel sure this example disproves K-Ar dating?


Just a few minor examples Orion, there are so many more of them out there.

What do you have to say to challenge the presuppositions listed or should we just ignore them?


-------
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: 01:22 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:22 AM on October 5, 2009 :
What do you have to say to challenge the presuppositions listed or should we just ignore them?


Xenoliths




-------
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: 01:29 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester,

Some examples of K-Ar dating on rocks of known age:

Sunset Crater, Northern Arizona – K-Ar dating 200 000+/Reality AD 1065

Mt Ngaurhoe NZ (lava flows) –K-Ar 275 000 / Reality: 1949,1954,1975

Hualalai Basalt, Hawaii – K-Ar 1,4 –22 million / Reality AD 1801(eruption)

Mt Etna Basalt, Sicily – K-Ar 140 000 – 250 000 / Reality 1972

Mt St Helens eruption –dated up to 2,8 billion years /Reality 1980

If your assumptions are wrong, your answers will be wrong, no matter how accurate your calculations are.

So if the dates are never right when we know the age of the rocks, how can we assume that they are correct when we don’t know the dates?


It would appear from Lester's list of sample dates that K-Ar dating is unreliable.  But is it?  Let's take a closer look.

Facts:
- K-40 has a half-life of 1.25 billion years.

- When rocks are heated to the melting point, any Ar-40 contained in them is released into the atmosphere. When the rock recrystallizes it becomes impermeable to gasses again. As the K-40 in the rock decays into Ar-40, the gas is trapped in the rock.

Thus K-Ar is useful in dating volcanic basalts.  

In 1969 G B Dalrymple published a paper testing the assumption that there is no, or little, Argon in volcanic basalts.  He did this by examining samples from 26 known volcanic basalt formation (i.e.; known historical lava flows).  Of the 26 sample sites, 18 showed no detectible Argon gas.  5 of the remaining 8 sample sites gave unreliable old age because of excess Argon-40, and 3 gave trivial young age because of excess argon-36.

- Hualalai - 1.05 mya and 1.19 mya (1801 actual)

- Mt Etna - 150,000 years (1792 AD actual)

- Mt Etna - 100,000 years (122 BC actual)

- Mt Lassen - 130,000 years (1915 AD actual)

- Sunset Crater - 210,000 years (1065 AD actual)

The sample showing the greatest descepancy, the Hualalai (Hawaii), also contained xenoliths inclusions which did not melt as the magma made its way to the surface.  These xenoliths inclusions were the source of the excess Argon in the Hualalai samples (Funkhouser and Naughton - 1968).  

YEC Geologist Snelling and Austin tried to present the above dates as proving the unreliabilty of K-Ar dating.

What exactly does this really mean?  It actually means that K-Ar should not be used in dating recently produced volcanic basalts, but that it is quite reliable in measuring the age of rocks millions of years old.

From here:
YEC misinterpret K-Ar dating of historical volcanics


Thus while Snelling implied that Dalrymple [1969] found severe problems with K-Ar dating when the truth is quite the opposite. Dalrymple found that they are reliable. Two-thirds of the time there is no excess argon at all. And in 25 times out of 26 tests there is no excess argon or there is so little excess argon that it will make only a tiny error, if any, in the final date for rocks millions of years old. Thus Dalrymple’s data is not consistent with a young Earth whatsoever. Indeed, if Dalrymple’s data is representative, 3 times out of 26 the K-Ar method will give a too young date (though by only an extremely trivial amount for a rock that is really millions of years old). The one case that would have produced a significant error, the Hualalai flow in Hawaii, was expected (see the previous essay). Even that significant error is only 1.19 million years (and not the 1.60 million years that Snelling claimed). If the identical rock had been formed 50 million years ago, the K-Ar would give a "false" age of a little over 51 million years. Thus this data is strongly supportive of mainstream geology.


This is an example showing how YEC misrepresent valid radiometric methods.  

In the hands of trained geologist who know what they are doing, K-Ar dating is quite reliable.

(Edited by orion 10/5/2009 at 02:06 AM).

(Edited by orion 10/5/2009 at 02:09 AM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 02:04 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The sample showing the greatest descepancy, the Hualalai (Hawaii), also contained xenoliths inclusions which did not melt as the magma made its way to the surface.  These xenoliths inclusions were the source of the excess Argon in the Hualalai samples


So you are trying to tell me that if it is not a recently produced basalt Flow then xenoliths don't affect results?

And .... what about all the other presuppostions of radiometric dating? Let's not leave them hanging.

You appear to be trying to excuse anything that we can actually rely on (known dates)
with flimsy excuses that only apply to known dates for obvious reasons. (They suit evolutionist dogma)  

Genetics doesn't support evolution.
The fossil record doesn't support evolution.
History doesn't support evolution.
Logic doesn't support evolution and .... it isn't happening now.

So lets get back to our presuppositions...


-------
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: 02:50 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:50 AM on October 5, 2009 :


So you are trying to tell me that if it is not a recently produced basalt Flow then xenoliths don't affect results?

Where do you think the xenoliths came from?
Why don't you explain, in your own words, what the problems really are.

Is radiometric dating perfect?

Not at all.

You will have us reject it in toto because of some understood anomalies.

Tell us - if you are unfortunate enough to develop cancer, are you planning on shunning all cancer treatments  because they are not 100% reliable?


.... what about all the other presuppostions of radiometric dating? Let's not leave them hanging.


Tell us all about them - in your own words.


Genetics doesn't support evolution.


You wrote that as if you have not already had your position on that issue shown to be naive uninformed nonsense.

Care to try again?

Or will you just expose your doctorate-level ignorance of things you claim expertise in?

So lets get back to our presuppositions...


Lets...

Yours is that an ancient collection of largely unoriginal moral tales and myths sprinkled with some legitimate history of unknown authorship represents unalterable, absolute historical truth, and that your cult's interpretation of these tales is the one true interpretation, and that all who disagree are evil.

What  a wonderful worldview....


(Edited by derwood 10/5/2009 at 11:41 AM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:44 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Mustrum at 2:25 PM on August 27, 2009 :
Quote from orion at 12:21 PM on August 27, 2009 :

I wasn't familiar with Karl Popper until Lester mentioned him.  Karl Popper was a philosopher of science, though not actually a scientist himself.  


There's a reason why most scientists don't pay attention to most philosophers - the philosophers typically don't know enough science to have anything of import to say about any given area of research.  Hence we see guys like Popper and Flew make what are elementary mistakes to someone actually well versed in a field.


When I was an undergrad, I took a research course and the instructor of that course, a microbiologist, at one point was listing the scientific specialties housed within the biology department.  He then mentioned the one philosopher of science on staff, rolled his eyes, and remarked 'whatever it is he does...'.

I thought that was a bit rude, but didn't give it much thought.

Fast forward about 20 years.  I am in the process of preppinng an introductory class on the nature of science for incoming freshmen, and in prep for this class, I have been reading up on the works of the 'great' philosophers of scieince - Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos, etc.  And now I understand why my former professor made the remark he did.  
When folks sit down and just think too much and do not apply what they think to the real world, we get the pie in the sky lofty gibberish of such folk (which surprised me from Kuhn especially, as he was actually a physicist before becoming a philosopher).  
I've read some criticisms of Popper wherein I discovered that much of his  positions on science were not actually original - he simply took the writing sof others and wrote essentially the same thing but from a different perspective.

I find his position on scientific endeavors to be particularly frustrating and indicative of a complete lack of practical experience.

And even more frustrating is the quote-fodder so many of them leave for us to have to deal with.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:53 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:18 AM on August 28, 2009 :

The problem is, once again, that both models (creation and evolution) support genetic variability. It’s the extent of the change possible that we differ on.


Yes - you put arbitrary limits on how much change is possible.  None on the ID/YEC side have even proposed what these limits might be, much less attempted to demonstrate them.

Arguments via assertion do not count for much in science.

So according to our model, systematic divisions should be seen and according to your model, gradual change should be seen.  

We predict that the record will continue to show clear gaps no matter how many fossils are found but we also know that the fossil record 150 years after Darwin is very representative of what there is and cannot be excused anymore.


Ah, so YECism predicts systematic gaps in the fossil record.  That is, gaps between extant living things.  
Allow me to use an analogy.

Say you stand on home plate with a bucket of baseballs.  You just start throwing balls into the field.  Some go to the left, some to the right, some up the center.  Some are short, some go far into the outfield.  After a while, the bucket is empty, and you leave.  A short time later, two people enter the diamond.  They see all the balls on the field.  One person says "Looks like dozens of people were in here, each tossing baseballs onto the field."  The other says"Or, it could be that just one person threw them all out onto the field."
"Preposterous!"  the first guy says.  "Let me prove it ."  He walks onto the field and walks off the distance between balls.  "Look at how far apart these balls are.  If only one person threw them all out here, why are there no balls closer together?"

This notion that there are 'gaps' and no intermediates and such raises at least a couple of issues.

One is what I see as an exceptionally shallow, folksy view of genetics and development from YECs.  They have interpreted 'gradualism' to mean that evolution should produce a smooth gradation of forms between a proposed ancestor and a descendant.  For example, if increasing height were given as an evolutionary adaptation, they would expect an ancestor fo 5 feet tall to produce a living descendant of 8 feet tall by way of thousands of intermediates of increasing height on the order of a few hundredths of an inch.
Or for the production of digits to proceed from a small nub ultimately to a normal digit by way of a number of 'intermediate' steps in which the nub gets longer and longer with each generation.

This demonstrates what I indicated - an absurdly naive view of how both genetics and evolution work.

Here is an example of a mutation producing a measurable phenotypic difference between parent and offspring.  I do not present this as an example of evolution, merely as an example of gene action.
A mutation in the FGFR-3 gene can produce achondroplasia, a form of dwarfism.  A 'normal' parent gives birth to a 'dwarf' less than half normal height with missing interphalangeal joints and disproportionate limb length.  In a single generation - no smooth gradation, no gradual shortening of stature from one generation to the next.

One has to wonder why YECs insist then that all such change must occur 'gradually.'

Second, we have the nebulous concept of a transitional form.  Ask a creationist what they mean by transitional form and you usually will not get an answer, and if you do, it is typically some silly caricature.  Provide an example of one, however, and it is summarily dismissed, usually with some rather naive, folks 'science' missive.
Show an ape-like human transtional - "Nope, it is just an ape."  Show them a primitive human with ape-like characteristics - "Nope, that is fully human."

Interestingly, YECs have a hard time finding the boundaries of their distinct 'kinds' which SHOULD be elementary if in fact all living things were created in such a fashion.
Look into Baraminology - they cannot even decide if all turtles arose from a single turtle-Kind, but we are to accept their bland dismissals of transtionals and accept their assertions at face value...


Together, the two lines of evidence support each other and provide evidence for one of the most successfully tested ideas in science.


No they don’t and no it isn’t.


Wow...

THAT is a rebuttal worthy of your doctorate, doc!



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:29 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 3:47 PM on September 14, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 10:14 AM on September 12, 2009 :

And the new organ? What new organ? Cannot open that page, so how about you tell me about the new organ -this should be interesting since you need organized information for new organs that do something with purpose, not random changes. Please enlighten me.  


No, please enlighten me - what do you mean by "organized information"?

Define information for us in this context.





Hello?

Define information please.



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:36 AM on October 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Orion

The sample showing the greatest descepancy, the Hualalai (Hawaii), also contained xenoliths inclusions which did not melt as the magma made its way to the surface.  These xenoliths inclusions were the source of the excess Argon in the Hualalai samples


So you are trying to tell me that if it is not a recently produced basalt Flow then xenoliths don't affect results?


No.  The xenoliths inclusions do affect the results.  The researchers cited earlier examining the Hualalai lava were testing to see if K-Ar dating was reliable for lava deposits with xenolith inclusions.

From here:
K-Ar dating of fresh lava with xenolith inclusions - Hualalai, Hawaii


The scientists did date something as being million of years old, but it wasn't lava. Notice the title of the actual scientific report:

Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii, J.G. Funkhouser and J.J. Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research 73:14 pp. 4601-4607 (15 July 1968)
The important word here is "Inclusions". The scientists were not out to date the lava: they were dating some chunks of olivine that were stuck in the lava like raisins. This lava was not hot enough to melt olivine, so the chunks were carried along when the eruption brought lava up from the depths. Of course the olivine inclusions dated as being old. They are old.

More Detail
In fact, the scientists weren't trying to date the olivine inclusions - the xenoliths. Rather, they were trying to find out if Potassium/Argon dating worked on such inclusions. There was a theory that the method wouldn't work, because the inclusions had spent a long time in the magma chamber below the volcano. The inclusions had probably been heated enough (for long enough) that some part of their Argon had escaped. So, their Potassium/Argon ages should be scattered all over the map. No one single age should dominate in the measurements.
The article reports that the theory was correct. K/Ar dating should not be used on xenoliths. But, the article clearly states (on page 4603) that the surrounding lava was dated correctly. This article casts no doubts whatsoever on the dating of lava.


So the use of K-Ar dating, like all radiometric dating methods, has to be applied to rock samples selected with judgment by experts - obviously by trained geologists.  There are limitations under which any radiometric dating method will not give reliable results.  It's these cases that YEC are all too eager to jump on and misrepresent.  Those are the situations that you see on the Creationists websites, such as the apparent bogus dates given for young lava samples.  They skip over and ignore the scientific explanation, leaving the reader with a grossly incorrect impression.  A flagrantly dishonest practice by anyone's standards, IMO.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:13 PM on October 5, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Radiocarbon Dating


The original assumption put forth by the developer of C14 dating (1949), Willard Libby, was that the C-14 concentration in the atmosphere was constant over time.  However, physicists pointed out that variation in the earth's magnetic field over time would cause the C-14 levels in the atmosphere to vary.  This turned out to be true - C-14 levels in the atmosphere did vary over time.

Scientist then set out to find ways in which to correct C-14 dating results. They developed C-14 calibration curves.  Ralph and Michael, for one, contributed in the developing C-14 calibration curves dating back to almost 10,000 years using thousands of continuous tree-ring (dendrochronolgy).  Scientists measuring lake varves have developed C-14 calibration curves to 45,000 years ago - close to the practical limit of C-14 dating.

Using these calibration curves C-14 has become very accurate when valid sampling is conducted.  So Lester, your arguments questioning the reliability of C-14 dating are specious.  You really should read some of this stuff from credible source - it's actually very interesting.

Here is an article about Henry Michael - who helped resolve problems with radiocarbon dating by contributing in the development of calibration curves derived from collecting ancient bristlecon pine samples.  It's a good example showing the years of dedication and long effort put forth by many scientists.

Telling Time

(Edited by orion 10/6/2009 at 01:58 AM).

(Edited by orion 10/6/2009 at 02:01 AM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:56 AM on October 6, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The original assumption put forth by the developer of C14 dating (1949), Willard Libby, was that the C-14 concentration in the atmosphere was constant over time.


One of many assumptions

So Lester, your arguments questioning the reliability of C-14 dating are specious.


No, they aren't because there are other assumptions and many, most certainly incorrect dates, that lead me and others to believe that the dates are generally too old and cannot be relied upon. Obviously some of the assumptions are incorrect so no matter how accurately they do their calculations, they will not get correct results.

You really should read some of this stuff from credible source


Your 'credible' sources would be people philisophically predisposed to believe that long ages have passed. There are no independant ways to confirm the actual dates except in the case of historical records.That is where carbon dating comes up wrong. Why should I then be predisposed to believe that the dates that cannot be independantly confirmed, are in fact correct?

It's a good example showing the years of dedication and long effort put forth by many scientists.


I understand dedication and long effort, Orion. I also understand philisophical prejudice that blinds people and allows them to accept what they otherwise wouldn't.




-------
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: 06:31 AM on October 6, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:31 AM on October 6, 2009 :
One of many assumptions


And one of your many assumptions is that pre-technological superstitious nomads were a Supernatural entities chosen people.
I also understand philisophical prejudice that blinds people and allows them to accept what they otherwise wouldn't.


Do you really?




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:29 PM on October 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 01:57 AM on October 4, 2009 :
Hualalai Basalt, Hawaii – K-Ar 1,4 –22 million / Reality AD 1801(eruption)


You were shown this was a lie in March, but you repeat it.

Your worldview is creationism, nothing to do with Christianity.

You reject truth and embrace lies to prop up your doubts.

Your faith is built on sand.


(Edited by Apoapsis 10/6/2009 at 9:05 PM).


-------
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: 8:45 PM on October 6, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:31 AM on October 6, 2009 :
I also understand philisophical prejudice that blinds people and allows them to accept what they otherwise wouldn't.


Could you recognize it in yourself?



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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:09 PM on October 6, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are limitations under which any radiometric dating method will not give reliable results.  It's these cases that YEC are all too eager to jump on and misrepresent.


No, unfortunately that is not what is happening. YEC geologists also get their own samples tested, they only quote evo results for evolutionists to contemplate.

The fact remains, the presuppositions are unprovable and many known dates have been proven to be utterly invalid. Radiometirc dating is without excuse.
By the way you also have the problem of all the helium in the zircons so you're not nearly free of YEC troubles.

.... what about all the other presuppostions of radiometric dating? Let's not leave them hanging.
Tell us all about them - in your own words.


I've already given you a short list -work with it, I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseum.


For example, if increasing height were given as an evolutionary adaptation, they would expect an ancestor fo 5 feet tall to produce a living descendant of 8 feet tall by way of thousands of intermediates of increasing height on the order of a few hundredths of an inch.


No Derwood, that is not the case and I think you're very well aware of the fact, so try to stop fooling yourself. The fossil record is far worse than that. The gaps are systematic and large. The fossil record is representative of what there is out there with 200 million+ fossils catalogued in museums worldwide. The intermediates do not exist. The few that evos insist on using, those few ambiguous cases they have to represent their worthless argument of gradualism, is wishful thinking at best and will not suffice.  

I've read some criticisms of Popper wherein I discovered that much of his  positions on science were not actually original - he simply took the writing sof others and wrote essentially the same thing but from a different perspective.


Much like Darwin did I would imagine. And these are two evolutionists we're talking about. Try not to become nervous when evolutionists say truthful things that happen to be to the benefit of ID and YEC. You're going to have to learn to deal with it.

Yours is that an ancient collection of largely unoriginal moral tales and myths sprinkled with some legitimate....


You sound like you're discussing evo fables (or fibbles) here Derwood. At least you admit to some historical content to the Bible but that's the only part you got right. You're right that the evo fables are at least original, though they are a bit far-fetched don't you think?
Was it a pre-hippo or a cat-like mammal or a hyena-like mammal that swam around treading water for millenia while it's tail turned into a tail fluke ever so gradually, Derwood? How did it's arms turn slowly into useful fins? How did it happen to develop something as useful as a blowhole by accident? Was it the reproductive cells responding to that excessive swimming?  Isn't that Lamarckism? Isn't Lamarckism dead? I suppose it is dead, much like spontaneous generation is dead. Dead, but not dead enough apparently, since evolutionists still believe in it. Don't keep telling me I believe in myths Derwood, drag that log out of your own eye.

Genetics doesn't support evolution.

You wrote that as if you have not already had your position on that issue shown to be naive uninformed nonsense.


Yours is the position of naive uninformed nonsense Derwood; mutations are taking the genome in the direction of extinction not onward and upward as evolutionary thinking requires. Mutational activity is eating away at it like rust, not building it up. That is the reality of the situation and to say otherwise is to show clear signs of delusion. It is, in fact, a prevailing delusion in the scientific community at present, so you're not alone.






-------
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: 02:57 AM on October 7, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:57 AM on October 7, 2009 :
There are limitations under which any radiometric dating method will not give reliable results.  It's these cases that YEC are all too eager to jump on and misrepresent.


No, unfortunately that is not what is happening. YEC geologists also get their own samples tested, they only quote evo results for evolutionists to contemplate.


Now, are these YEC geologists like Steve Austin?


By the way you also have the problem of all the helium in the zircons so you're not nearly free of YEC troubles.


Really?  Do tell - in your own words.  I recall you claiming to have taken classes in physics and geology, so surely you have sufficient expertise in radiometric dating to explain the problem in your own words.

.... what about all the other presuppostions of radiometric dating? Let's not leave them hanging.
Tell us all about them - in your own words.


I've already given you a short list -work with it, I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseum.


Surely a scientific expert with a doctorate - like you - does not actually think that a list is an explanation?


For example, if increasing height were given as an evolutionary adaptation, they would expect an ancestor fo 5 feet tall to produce a living descendant of 8 feet tall by way of thousands of intermediates of increasing height on the order of a few hundredths of an inch.


No Derwood, that is not the case and I think you're very well aware of the fact, so try to stop fooling yourself.

I hace drawn that conclusion after years of trying to discuss these issues with people like you.  If my conclusions are wrong, it is the fault of your brethren, not me.`


The fossil record is far worse than that. The gaps are systematic and large.


So you've saud, but I don't think you've explained what you mean by "systematic" and "large."  How large?  Large compared to what?  


The fossil record is representative of what there is out there with 200 million+ fossils catalogued in museums worldwide. The intermediates do not exist. The few that evos insist on using, those few ambiguous cases they have to represent their worthless argument of gradualism, is wishful thinking at best and will not suffice.


so you keep saying - aseerting - but you've yet to offer any actual explanations.  
Tell us all EXACTLY what you think a transitional between, say, ancestral ape-like hominids and humans should look like.  Your answer will dictate whether or not 1. I was wrong in my little scenarios about digit production and increasing height - and 2. how well you understand genetics, population genetics, and development.
 

I've read some criticisms of Popper wherein I discovered that much of his  positions on science were not actually original - he simply took the writing sof others and wrote essentially the same thing but from a different perspective.


Much like Darwin did I would imagine.


Darwin 1809-1882

Popper - 1902-1994

I sort of doubt that Darwin knew of Popper's work.  What do you think, doc?

And these are two evolutionists we're talking about. Try not to become nervous when evolutionists say truthful things that happen to be to the benefit of ID and YEC. You're going to have to learn to deal with it.


Did you have an informed opinion or comment to make regarding Popper's claims re: science, or are you simply being contrarian with nothing to offer?


Yours is that an ancient collection of largely unoriginal moral tales and myths sprinkled with some legitimate....


You sound like you're discussing evo fables (or fibbles) here Derwood. At least you admit to some historical content to the Bible but that's the only part you got right. You're right that the evo fables are at least original, though they are a bit far-fetched don't you think?


I note that you did not even try to correct my assessment.



Was it a pre-hippo or a cat-like mammal or a hyena-like mammal that swam around treading water for millenia while it's tail turned into a tail fluke ever so gradually, Derwood?


For someone who claims to have been an evolutionist and to understand evolution and to have an earned doctorate with a science background, you sure make statements that are more typical for those with, at best, a 2 year technical degree, an obsessive religiosity, and a tendency to accept silly YEC propaganda at face value.
I suggest that you actually try to educate yoursselfon the issue of whale evolution instead of regurgitating the same flawed desperation you've been spewing.


How did it's arms turn slowly into useful fins?


"Turn slowly into"?

I thought you said that my conclusions (e.g., height increases) were incorrect?
Do you not even know what your own sidfe claims?


How did it happen to develop something as useful as a blowhole by accident? Was it the reproductive cells responding to that excessive swimming?  Isn't that Lamarckism? Isn't Lamarckism dead? I suppose it is dead, much like spontaneous generation is dead. Dead, but not dead enough apparently, since evolutionists still believe in it. Don't keep telling me I believe in myths Derwood, drag that log out of your own eye.


You seem solely able to misrepresent that which you find contrary to your religious cult's premises.
In the above passage alone, you conflate abiogenesis with spiontaneous generation, imply abiogenesis is part of evolution, and exhibit an apparent child's understanding of evolution despite a claim to a doctorate.

You are either monumentally ignorant of the things you claim education in, or you are purposefully misrepresenitng it.


Genetics doesn't support evolution.

You wrote that as if you have not already had your position on that issue shown to be naive uninformed nonsense.


Yours is the position of naive uninformed nonsense Derwood; mutations are taking the genome in the direction of extinction not onward and upward as evolutionary thinking requires. Mutational activity is eating away at it like rust, not building it up. That is the reality of the situation and to say otherwise is to show clear signs of delusion.

Really?

You're a geneticist, too?

Tell us all about how mutations are 'eating away' at the genome, in your own expert words, of course.

If you are going to defer to your latest creationist hero who has made such claims, please explain, in your own words, why your YEC hero is right and everyone else is wrong.

Surely, your confidence indicates your ability to do so.

I note again that you did not even attempt to support your original claims.  You never do.  You can't.

It is, in fact, a prevailing delusion in the scientific community at present, so you're not alone.


Right.  Only YECs on the internet and those who write lie and disinformaiton filled books targetted at lay auidiences REALLY know the TROOOF.

So, as a PhD and all - tell us what your graduate research was on.

I already stated what mine was on.



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:28 AM on October 7, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dude?  Les - you there?

I notice that you have this habit of abandoning threads when you get called out on something.  Can't face the music?  


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:07 PM on October 10, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I recall you claiming to have taken classes in physics and geology


I very much doubt I said geology Derwood. Everything I know about geology is through my own research in my own time. You are guessing.

Surely a scientific expert with a doctorate - like you - does not actually think that a list is an explanation?

I was asked for presuppositions involved in radiometric dating. I’m not going to write a thesis on a thread called “Creationism in schools” and as a response to “What presuppositions?” Tell me which presuppositions you do not agree are presuppositions and we can discuss that further. The topic is too vast and I think you know that.
I hace drawn that conclusion after years of trying to discuss these issues with people like you.  If my conclusions are wrong, it is the fault of your brethren, not me.`


Personally I think you have drawn these conclusions after years of using strawman arguments in the place of honest argumentation. You pretend not to understand our arguments in order to remain in the dark where you are content to be. You are disagreeable by nature and by religious persuasion.You can’t see design in nature because you have forced yourself not to see it. You think complex nanomachinary built itself by mistake because that explanation suits your religious preference.

So you've saud, but I don't think you've explained what you mean by "systematic" and "large."  How large?  Large compared to what?


Let’s take the Cambrian explosion for example. No clear ancestors, not even a trace of one, just a sudden profusion of diverse multicellular organisms with no history. Even the Cambrian organisms are not linked to one another, never mind to those organisms found lower down in the fossil record. That is what I mean by ‘systematic’ and ‘ large.’ By ‘large’ I mean clearly not related except by virtue of lacking a backbone, the one main characteristic that ties the group together.

Tell us all EXACTLY what you think a transitional between, say, ancestral ape-like hominids and humans should look like.  


If such a thing existed, it would look like semi-man, semi-ape –no doubt about that. The problem is the assumption that that sort of creature exists via the supposed evidence of dead bones in the dirt. You believe thus you see. It’s all in your philopshy. Me, I see no evidence of macroevolution, so I don’t see that the transition between man and ape is even possible. Man is fundamentally different to ape. An ape will never write a concerto nor design a bridge.

I've read some criticisms of Popper wherein I discovered that much of his  positions on science were not actually original - he simply took the writing sof others and wrote essentially the same thing but from a different perspective.
Much like Darwin did I would imagine.
Darwin 1809-1882

Popper - 1902-1994

I sort of doubt that Darwin knew of Popper's work.  What do you think, doc?


You misinterpreted what I tried to say. You said much of Popper’s position on science was not original. I said ‘much like Darwin’ meaning that a lot of Darwin’s ideas were not original either.

Was it a pre-hippo or a cat-like mammal or a hyena-like mammal that swam around treading water for millenia while it's tail turned into a tail fluke ever so gradually, Derwood?
For someone who claims to have been an evolutionist and to understand evolution and to have an earned doctorate with a science background, you sure make statements that are more typical for those with, at best, a 2 year technical degree, an obsessive religiosity, and a tendency to accept silly YEC propaganda at face value.


And my assessment of your position is that you do not face what evolution is actually saying –you put a veneer on it in your mind and that substitutes for rigour. Imagination substitutes for evidence. Evolution does have some land animal becoming a whale so if you think you can make that sound scientific rather than Lamarckian and dubious at best, then you have a better imagination and more faith than I have.

That whale evolution picture is wonderfully imaginative Derwood and I can see why you are impressed but I could line up 16 different forks and spin a yarn of how one type evolved into another too and it would be just as faith and imagination-based as your particular delusion. There is no evidence that any one of those creatures in the line up turned into any other one in the line up. We don’t see it happening today, there is no evidence that macroevolution can happen and there is no reason to believe that long ago and far away one type of organism could give birth to another type of organism, then find a mate of the same kind,  and produce a whole entire improved population of organisms fundamentally different from their predecessors. It’s a story. The frog turned into a prince. The very same kind of story.

Apart from that I see you are way behind the times. Rhodocetus, for one, is still sitting there, as is Basilosaurus –you can get rid of them, the experts don’t quite believe that anymore.And why didn’t we start with a hippo ancestor as DNA apparently suggests? So much confusion. ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.’ You are caught up in a huge deception Derwood, it’s a maze, get out of there; you’re living in darkness.

"Turn slowly into"?

I thought you said that my conclusions (e.g., height increases) were incorrect?
Do you not even know what your own sidfe claims?


I don’t expect to find every transitional kind Derwood –that was your previous point. But I do expect to see a general trend. Yes - ‘turn slowly into’ –do you think it could have been quick? Like punctuated equilibrium perhaps? What do you think Derwood? How do you think could that happen?

In the above passage alone, you conflate abiogenesis with spiontaneous generation


They are the same Derwood, name games aside, they both mean life from non-life. The name abiogenesis was just invented to inject a marginal amount of respectability into the now discredited concept of spontaneous generation. It’s not as sudden but slow and drawn out making it more plausible for our imaginations to cope with.

imply abiogenesis is part of evolution


Well it must be surely? Your faith wants nothing to do with a belief in any intelligence involved in the production of life, so you’ll have to go with abiogenesis if you are to have a coherent explanation for life. No beginning, no story. Take your pick – intelligence or abiogenesis?

and exhibit an apparent child's understanding of evolution despite a claim to a doctorate.


Look at what you believe Derwood before pointing fingers. Man evolved slowly from a rock over billions of years and by accident. That’s what you believe so why is my belief to be laughed at? You can try desperately to make it sound scientific but those of us not caught up in the delusion see your theory for what it is –fanciful garbage.

By the way, I stand by what I told you, I do have a doctorate and you never need know what it is in. Don’t believe it if you don’t want to; it’ll just introduce further delusion into your life and that would not be an unexpected development.
   


 





-------
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: 06:15 AM on October 11, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:15 AM on October 11, 2009 :
I recall you claiming to have taken classes in physics and geology


I very much doubt I said geology Derwood. Everything I know about geology is through my own research in my own time. You are guessing.


No, I am working from memory of something you wrote several days ago.
I know you said pysics, so why the pedantery?  can you address the issues or not?

Surely a scientific expert with a doctorate - like you - does not actually think that a list is an explanation?

I was asked for presuppositions involved in radiometric dating. I’m not going to write a thesis on a thread called “Creationism in schools” and as a response to “What presuppositions?” Tell me which presuppositions you do not agree are presuppositions and we can discuss that further. The topic is too vast and I think you know that.

No, you were asked to provide evidence of the problems with radiometric dating, you provided a list.

Question:
Lester - we're still waiting for you to present some evidence showing how radiometric method are unreliable

Answer:
1.That equilibrium has been reached between incoming and outgoing C14 – as it turns out it hasn’t, we are 25% out of equilibrium but Willard Libby chalked that up to margin of error (a hefty one) because he knew that the earth was billions of years old and that it takes only about 30 000 years to reach equilibrium. Bad assumption.
2.Has the rate of decay remained constant? (it appears not, see RATE results)
3.Starting amount of C14 when the animal died (depends on ratio of C12:C14 in the atmosphere –has it always been the same?) Like a candle burning at known rate –we need to know how long it was to start with.
4.Changes in rate of production of C14 with time – cosmic ray penetration, strength of earth’s magnetic field, Genesis flood
[...]


A concoted collection of crazy creto claims and assertions are not evidence, nor is it an explanation.


I have drawn that conclusion after years of trying to discuss these issues with people like you.  If my conclusions are wrong, it is the fault of your brethren, not me.`


Personally I think you have drawn these conclusions after years of using strawman arguments in the place of honest argumentation. You pretend not to understand our arguments in order to remain in the dark where you are content to be.

You say this, and yet you've not actually bothered to correct my supposed 'strawman' claims, and you even go on to all but use my examples as 'challenges' (e.g. - prattling on about gradualism and no transitionals and such) - if I am so incorrect and my claims are so in error, why not correct them instead of just asserting over and over that they are wrong?

You can’t see design in nature because you have forced yourself not to see it.


You can’t see evolution in nature because you have forced yourself not to see it.

You think complex nanomachinary built itself by mistake because that explanation suits your religious preference.

Your religious preference informs you that using metaphorical language and analogies really is evidence.
Shame that you didn't actualyl learn what evidence is when you were 'earning' your 'doctorate. in 'science.

So you've said, but I don't think you've explained what you mean by "systematic" and "large."  How large?  Large compared to what?


Let’s take the Cambrian explosion for example. No clear ancestors, not even a trace of one, just a sudden profusion of diverse multicellular organisms with no history.

How sudden?

Do you know how long the Cambrian 'explosion' lasted?  
70-80 MILLION years.


Do you know that there is a Pre-Cambrian period and there are Pre-Cambrian fossils?
You should check it out some time.

Do you know why there may not be too many fossils from that time?  You claim a doctorate in science, you SHOULD.

Even the Cambrian organisms are not linked to one another, never mind to those organisms found lower down in the fossil record. That is what I mean by ‘systematic’ and ‘ large.’ By ‘large’ I mean clearly not related except by virtue of lacking a backbone, the one main characteristic that ties the group together.

So, your entire beef with evolution is the Cambrian explosion?

What about what has happened since?  

Tell us all EXACTLY what you think a transitional between, say, ancestral ape-like hominids and humans should look like.  


If such a thing existed, it would look like semi-man, semi-ape –no doubt about that. The problem is the assumption that that sort of creature exists via the supposed evidence of dead bones in the dirt.

So you are pre-rejecting anything that would actually count as a transitional.  Nice.  

You believe thus you see. It’s all in your philopshy.

It is not philosophy that dictates the law of superposition.  It is not philosophy that informs us of the fossilization process.  It is not philosophy that shows us intermediate features on extracted fossils that just happen to be found in a manner that is temporally consistent with evolutionary predictions and expectations.
It Is, however, philosophy that informs someone who claims knowledge of science to simply reject the evidence on a priori grounds.

Me, I see no evidence of macroevolution, so I don’t see that the transition between man and ape is even possible.


You philosophy tells you so.


Man is fundamentally different to ape. An ape will never write a concerto nor design a bridge.

Can YOU write a concerto or design a bridge?
No?  Then you must not be human, yes?
YOU will never be able to beat college football linemen in tests of strength by a facotr of 5 - chimps can.  
ALL species are fundamentally different in many ways - if they were not, then they would not be different species.  

Your personal incredulity is not evidence.  Sorry.
I've read some criticisms of Popper wherein I discovered that much of his  positions on science were not actually original - he simply took the writing sof others and wrote essentially the same thing but from a different perspective.
Much like Darwin did I would imagine.
Darwin 1809-1882

Popper - 1902-1994

I sort of doubt that Darwin knew of Popper's work.  What do you think, doc?


You misinterpreted what I tried to say. You said much of Popper’s position on science was not original. I said ‘much like Darwin’ meaning that a lot of Darwin’s ideas were not original either.


That could well be, I accept your clarification.

And of course Darwin built upon what others had written - that is how science works.

However, that does not address whether or not you are familiar with Popper's claims.

Was it a pre-hippo or a cat-like mammal or a hyena-like mammal that swam around treading water for millenia while it's tail turned into a tail fluke ever so gradually, Derwood?
For someone who claims to have been an evolutionist and to understand evolution and to have an earned doctorate with a science background, you sure make statements that are more typical for those with, at best, a 2 year technical degree, an obsessive religiosity, and a tendency to accept silly YEC propaganda at face value.


And my assessment of your position is that you do not face what evolution is actually saying –you put a veneer on it in your mind and that substitutes for rigour. Imagination substitutes for evidence. Evolution does have some land animal becoming a whale so if you think you can make that sound scientific rather than Lamarckian and dubious at best, then you have a better imagination and more faith than I have.

That whale evolution picture is wonderfully imaginative Derwood and I can see why you are impressed but I could line up 16 different forks and spin a yarn of how one type evolved into another too and it would be just as faith and imagination-based as your particular delusion. There is no evidence that any one of those creatures in the line up turned into any other one in the line up. We don’t see it happening today, there is no evidence that macroevolution can happen and there is no reason to believe that long ago and far away one type of organism could give birth to another type of organism, then find a mate of the same kind,  and produce a whole entire improved population of organisms fundamentally different from their predecessors. It’s a story. The frog turned into a prince. The very same kind of story.


blah blah blah

Your innability to interpret the evidence is no reason to denigrate those who can.
And why didn’t we start with a hippo ancestor as DNA apparently suggests?

Um...

Like I said, you should actually try to understand the evidence and the analyses and the conclusions before erecting these silly strawman claims.



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:27 PM on October 11, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is what I wrote:


It is now thought not to have had a fluke and it is certain that it never had flippers because they subsequently found the hand bones.

Care to guess what animal these bones belonged to?
These?



Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.


Here is how YEC Lester replied:

It is now thought not to have had a fluke and it is certain that it never had flippers because they subsequently found the hand bones.

Please explain, premised on your own in-depth anatomical expertise, and not the sensationalized claims you're read and taken at face value on some website or creationist book.


How about we take it from the man who speculated on the tail fluke in the first place.


(Edited by derwood 10/11/2009 at 6:19 PM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:17 PM on October 11, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood - I would like to know what animal those bones belong to!  Obviously Lester doesn't have a clue - neither do I.  But I'm curious - what are they?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:04 PM on October 11, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 10:04 PM on October 11, 2009 :
Derwood - I would like to know what animal those bones belong to!  Obviously Lester doesn't have a clue - neither do I.  But I'm curious - what are they?

The top one is a manatee flipper, the bottom is a seal flipper.

Note the "hand bones" in them.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:27 AM on October 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow!  I would never have guessed.  I notice that four of the 'fingers' have two joints, while the fifth one, the thumb, just has one joint - just like in a mammal's hand, like ours.

Very cool!  Thanks!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:48 AM on October 12, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 10:48 AM on October 12, 2009 :
Wow!  I would never have guessed.  I notice that four of the 'fingers' have two joints, while the fifth one, the thumb, just has one joint - just like in a mammal's hand, like ours.

Very cool!  Thanks!



Sure - and isn't it odd that the Creator/Designer put 'hand bones' in flippers?




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:17 AM on October 12, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 11:17 AM on October 12, 2009 :
Quote from orion at 10:48 AM on October 12, 2009 :
Wow!  I would never have guessed.  I notice that four of the 'fingers' have two joints, while the fifth one, the thumb, just has one joint - just like in a mammal's hand, like ours.

Very cool!  Thanks!



Sure - and isn't it odd that the Creator/Designer put 'hand bones' in flippers?





Very odd indeed that the Creator would do that.  But not so odd from an evolution point of view - that's what evolution had to work with.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:43 PM on October 12, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 5:17 PM on October 12, 2009 :
Quote from orion at 10:48 AM on October 12, 2009 :
Wow!  I would never have guessed.  I notice that four of the 'fingers' have two joints, while the fifth one, the thumb, just has one joint - just like in a mammal's hand, like ours.

Very cool!  Thanks!



Sure - and isn't it odd that the Creator/Designer put 'hand bones' in flippers?





Nah, not at all. Perfectly obvious that the creator was simply using up an excess of hands. Presumably he was on a budget and didn't want to waste whatever he had made too much of... wait a minute that would surely mean that he was fallible... thereby controverting the biblical myth that he was infallible ..., thereby disproving story of the bible,  ... therby ... proving Genesis wrong, thereby proving that there is no God Woo hoo, we've done it! Imagine...





Sorry, couldn't help it :D


-------
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: 1:38 PM on October 12, 2009 | IP
cocacola

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution is science-it has multi-sourced supporting evidence..
creationism has one source purported to be evidence-and that is the bible. This is an ontological dead end.
But who cares? bigger issues than creationsim and evolution exist.  How about overpopulation, the dumbing of America, the lack of any reason behind many political decisions, lowering of social standards, accomodating instead of enforcing (fill in the blank), replacing merit with (fill in the blank), Political correctness, Big government, morality laws...etc.



-------
Dave
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 11:06 PM on March 7, 2011 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 ]
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.