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
     Evolution of the Eye
       how did it happen?

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

    
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 09:26 AM on September 22, 2009 :
Quote from Apoapsis at 5:47 PM on September 13, 2009 :
The simplest eyes are in single celled organisms.


Sight is further developed in multicellular organisms:




Since sight is so useful, it is heavily selected for, so gradual improvements develop.






Looking this over, I'm hard-pressed to figure out what exactly the creationists here mean when they say there's a missing step -- that is, the step between single-celled organism's with light-sensing organelles and multi-celled organisms with light-sensing cells.

It should be quite obvious: Multi-celled organisms simply have collections of cells on their bodies with more specialized photoreceptors.





is it just me, or does anyone else see that Apoapsis is using "cheap sniping" instead of giving evidence?


Check out the bottom of the first page and eat your words.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/22/2009 at 09:36 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 09:35 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 5:41 PM on September 21, 2009 :
to Derwood,
it has come to my attention that there seems to be a theme for you debating methods.

How did this come to your attention?  Did someone make you aware of it, or did you figger it our all on your own?

of what I have seen, whenever you are asked a question that you can't give an answer to, or when you receive a rebuttal that, if not disproves, then at least casts serious doubt over a point you brought forward. you give a reply that is something similar to
" Oh yeah! well Creationists can't prove their faith either"

I think you are confusing my turning the tables to demonstrate how ignorant and shallow your 'questions' and assertions are with dodging.  Is that it?

In reality, this is how I respond to questions I have no answer for:

"I think you are looking for an hypothesis, not a theory.  As for the eye, I don't have one. For me, the evidence for evolution as such is sufficient that because I personally do not have a step by step evidence-backed explanation for the evolution of a specific body part I am not troubled."


" I tell them that there are certain events in evolution that we simply do not understand and/or do not have good evidence for. "


(in response to "The evolution of the eye is an example -you don't know that it evolved")
"No, I don't.  But there is evidence that indicates that it did.  "

Just from this thread, by the way...

As far as 'rebuttals', I have yet to see a 'rebuttal' to anything that I have written that is worth anything at all (feel free to provide your best example if you can find one) .

to help sort out this dilemma, I have provided you with some of the definitions of faith and a link to verify them:

faith:
2. belief that is not based on proof.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.
5. a system of religious belief.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

and for a contrust, here is the definition of a theory (eg. theory of evolution) and a link to verify them:

theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.


to put it into more simple terms.
faith in creationisim must be taken in on faith
the theory of evolution must be proven through facts and "a coherent group of general propositions"


Um...

I think you might want to re-read the definitions of 'theory' and then use the term appropriately.
Here, let me help you - only the first definition you provided is relevant scientifically:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

Please show us all where in the definiton that YOU provided do we see anything about how a theory "must be proven through facts".

Surely even a novice can see that the theory of evolution is, at the very least, a "coherent group of general propositions".

You do not seem very adept at debate when the very 'facts' you bring to the table are contrary to your stated interpretation of them.

and as proof that I am not casting rumours about you, I have compiled a list of quotes  Just from your last post:
Quote from derwood at 3:57 PM on September 21, 2009 :

You say that, but you present exactly ZERO actual supporting evidence.
the observable evidence and 'actual data' FOR your position seems to consist entirely of not 'believing' in mine.
Which is to say, no evidence or data at all.
for 'evos', you demand explicit and intricate detail supported with reams of evidence that fit your idiosyncratic criteria for counting as evidence, but for your own position, you seem to require only your interpretation of Scripture
trotting out unsupported assertions.
if this master engineer exists, nobody has presented any evidence of it
There is a big difference between extrapolating from evidence to what might have been and fabricating evidenceless 'stories.'
it is YOUR actual belief system that relies solely on mythology and mysticism and ritual and blind faith.
Show us the EVIDENCE for your designer/creator
where are the bones of the bilical patriarchs?  Where are the tablets of the 10 commandments?  Why is there no record of the events depicted in Exodus in any Egyptian records?
And please - no evidence-free stories.
Provide your evidence - evidence that does not rely on having to look at it from within your metaphysical worldview
So you keep asserting, but your assertions continue to be entirely unsupported.
Right, so since there are no historical records of Yahweh or the creation, both must be just stories.
until you demonstrate that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and ...



and just to be totally sure you don't misinterpret this post,


You've learned from the worst, haven't you?

NONE of the quotes you provide accomplishes supporting the charges you made against me - you've ripped them from their context to prop up your false claim.  NONE of them simply try to shift the burden.  NONE of them are examples of me weaseling out from questions or 'rebuttals' that I cannot handle.

For but one counter-example - you provide this quote from me:

You say that, but you present exactly ZERO actual supporting evidence.
[

First, how is that akin to " Oh yeah! well Creationists can't prove their faith either"?
And worse for your false charges is the actual context - it was in RESPONSE to this hyperbolic claim:

"I say all body parts were created to function together as a whole and you say each body part evolved randomly through chance mutations and selection of the best mistakes to make something that worked in a co-ordinated manner. "

Apparently, your 'defense' of that assertion is that it is a YECism cult belief and therefore does not need to be supported with facts or evidence as it is taken on faith.

What a completley hypocritical position to take!  

"Gee, we don't have to come up with no evidence for our beliefs, cuz' they is just BELIEFS and we take it on FAITH so therefore it is true and you can't aks me for no ev'dinse!"

What a pathetic 'defense' of a belief system!

I will repeat the important bit:
faith in creationisim must be taken in on faith
the theory of evolution must be proven through facts and "a coherent group of general propositions"

So, you are repeating an embellisehd idiosyncratic definition to excuse your false charges.. nice...

Of course, if your made up claims had merit, then why on earth do people on your side of the fence declare that the cult beliefs of YECism should be taught in science class?  Why do you pretend that there is "evidence" for YECism?

Seems pretty hypocritical and ignorant to me.


But I, too have noted a theme in your posts.

I have noted that you first unleash a tirade of, for lack of a more civil yet equally apt depiction, stupidity that you demand reasoned discourse in response to, you then spend the bulk of your time whining about the supposed tone of the replies you get.


I have compiled a short list of quotes from you documenting my charge:

"some poor animal (most likely a fish) had its genes mutated in some way so that it grew a facial tumour. "


"but this specific tumour was special.
it connected to some nerve endings (later to be called optic nerves) that lead to the brain."


"it also had muscles attacked to it so that it could move."

"and was covered by a strangely shaped layer of skin (the lens) that helped to filter light."

"I'm sorry, I made a mistake. there where actually two identical tumours on either side of the face."








-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:37 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 12:10 AM on September 22, 2009 :
there is one fatal problem with what you are saying:

I am NOT trying to convince you, or anyone else, that the creationist view (Christianity) is true

I chose the name 'Anti-Evolutionist' because that is what I am. I argue against evolution. not for creationisim


In order to argue against something, should you not have a basic understanding of it?  I refer the reader to this thread's opening post and I ask if you think the author iof that post has even a basic understanding of what evolution postulates.


this group of debates are labelled under the title " Creationism vs Evolution debates".
that is the reason (as well as personal beliefs) that I offer Creationism as an alternative to evolution.

So, you just admitted that which you just denied.
A distinction without a difference.

and because you evidently misinterpreted my last post (as I was afraid someone would) I will explain what I meant:
the theory of evolution is a science based belief. it NEEDS TO be proven it is consistent with scientific facts.

Again, you need to re-read the definiton you provided.  It says NOTHING of "proven."
Unfortuantely, you do not get to re-define terms and concepts to make your position easier to argue.

creationisim is a faith based religion. it simply CAN NOT be proven nor disprove.
that is why is Evolution Vs. Creation debates it does not matter how much (or little) evidence there is for creation. the only thing that matters is how much evidence there is of evolution.

I hope you understand this time


One would hope that a person, PRIOR to engaging in condescension, is of a postion in which no errors of interpretation or understanding have been made.

Creationists, er, um, sorry, I mean 'anti-evolutionists', seem top have a big problem in that department.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:49 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 10:49 AM on September 22, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 12:10 AM on September 22, 2009 :
there is one fatal problem with what you are saying:

I am NOT trying to convince you, or anyone else, that the creationist view (Christianity) is true

I chose the name 'Anti-Evolutionist' because that is what I am. I argue against evolution. not for creationisim


In order to argue against something, should you not have a basic understanding of it?  I refer the reader to this thread's opening post and I ask if you think the author iof that post has even a basic understanding of what evolution postulates.


this group of debates are labelled under the title " Creationism vs Evolution debates".
that is the reason (as well as personal beliefs) that I offer Creationism as an alternative to evolution.

So, you just admitted that which you just denied.
A distinction without a difference.

Derwood, please read over what I said again. at no point have I denied being a creationist.



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


Posts: 111 | Posted: 03:18 AM on September 25, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 03:18 AM on September 25, 2009 :
Quote from derwood at 10:49 AM on September 22, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 12:10 AM on September 22, 2009 :
there is one fatal problem with what you are saying:

I am NOT trying to convince you, or anyone else, that the creationist view (Christianity) is true

I chose the name 'Anti-Evolutionist' because that is what I am. I argue against evolution. not for creationisim


In order to argue against something, should you not have a basic understanding of it?  I refer the reader to this thread's opening post and I ask if you think the author iof that post has even a basic understanding of what evolution postulates.


this group of debates are labelled under the title " Creationism vs Evolution debates".
that is the reason (as well as personal beliefs) that I offer Creationism as an alternative to evolution.

So, you just admitted that which you just denied.
A distinction without a difference.

Derwood, please read over what I said again. at no point have I denied being a creationist.


Who wrote this again?

"I chose the name 'Anti-Evolutionist' because that is what I am. I argue against[ evolution. not for creationisim"

Whatever...


Now, are you going to explain how your special flood did this:



I am especially interested in your YEC explanation for how the walls of the GC remained essentially vertical when, according to the explanations about fossils you folks give, the entire depth of the canyon would have been soft sediment at the time.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:13 PM on September 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Derwood, did you take that picture?  Are those your feet?  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:38 PM on September 25, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



I am especially interested in your YEC explanation for how the walls of the GC remained essentially vertical when, according to the explanations about fossils you folks give, the entire depth of the canyon would have been soft sediment at the time.


Mt. Everest currently towers 8848m above sea level.
due to tectonic movement, Mt. Everest grows 3cm/year
the top of the Grand canyon is around 4000m (depending on which part you look at)
the bible says the flood waters rose 23 feet (7.0104 m) above the tallest mountain.
according to other peoples calculations, the flood happened around 4500 years ago

with this information we can determine that:
at the time of the flood, Mt. Everest stood 8713m above (our current) sea level
therefore the flood waters rose 8720m
that is 4713m above the Grand Canyon

using the formula P=dgh we can determine the pressure the sediment deposits at the Grand Canyon were under.
P is the fluid pressure;
d is the density of the fluid (the practical density of seawater is about 1025 kg/m3);
g is the acceleration due to gravity (actual value 9.81.. m/s2 so I just used  m/s2 );
h is the height of the water column in metres.

Therefore;
P=dgh
P=(1025 kg/m3)(9.81 m/s2)(4713 m)
P=47,438,701.5 Pa (Pascal)


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


Posts: 111 | Posted: 7:24 PM on September 25, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 7:24 PM on September 25, 2009 :
using the formula P=dgh we can determine the pressure the sediment deposits at the Grand Canyon were under.
P is the fluid pressure;
d is the density of the fluid (the practical density of seawater is about 1025 kg/m3);
g is the acceleration due to gravity (actual value 9.81.. m/s2 so I just used  m/s2 );
h is the height of the water column in metres.

Therefore;
P=dgh
P=(1025 kg/m3)(9.81 m/s2)(4713 m)
P=47,438,701.5 Pa (Pascal)


The Marianas Trench is 10,924 meters deep right now, so the pressure is :

P=(1025 kg/m3)(9.81 m/s2)(10924 m) = 109,843,551 Pa

The bottom is muck.



-------
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 September 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 9:36 PM on September 25, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 7:24 PM on September 25, 2009 :
using the formula P=dgh we can determine the pressure the sediment deposits at the Grand Canyon were under.
P is the fluid pressure;
d is the density of the fluid (the practical density of seawater is about 1025 kg/m3);
g is the acceleration due to gravity (actual value 9.81.. m/s2 so I just used  m/s2 );
h is the height of the water column in metres.

Therefore;
P=dgh
P=(1025 kg/m3)(9.81 m/s2)(4713 m)
P=47,438,701.5 Pa (Pascal)


The Marianas Trench is 10,924 meters deep right now, so the pressure is :

P=(1025 kg/m3)(9.81 m/s2)(10924 m) = 109,843,551 Pa

The bottom is muck.



Muck!!!  Apoapsis - how can that possibly be?  Under all that pressure.  Surely the ocean bottom must be hard as rock at the bottom of the Marianas Trench!  Show us the evidence - please.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:15 PM on September 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Marianas Trench - where the huge Pacific plate subducts under the Mariana plate.  From Wiki:

The Swiss-designed, Italian-built, United States Navy bathyscaphe Trieste reached the bottom at 1:06 p.m. on January 23, 1960, with U.S. Navy Lieutenant Don Walsh and Jacques Piccard on board.[2] Iron shot was used for ballast, with gasoline for buoyancy.[2] The onboard systems indicated a depth of 11,521 meters (37,799 ft), but this was later revised to 10,924 meters(35,840 ft)[1] . At the bottom, Walsh and Piccard were surprised to discover soles or flounder about 30 cm (1 ft) long,[7] as well as shrimp.[citation needed] According to Piccard, "The bottom appeared light and clear, a waste of firm diatomaceous ooze".[

So even at that great depth critters can be found.  Astounding!  And see... Piccard describes the bottom as 'ooze' - aka 'Muck'.  So Apoapsis is correct - as he often is.

Wow!  Imagine going down to the deepest part of the ocean.  It would take far more courage than what I possess, let me tell you!

Amazing!  So life finds a way to live under extreme conditions!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:39 PM on September 25, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Marianas Trench is 10,924 meters deep right now, so the pressure is :

P=(1025 kg/m3)(9.81 m/s2)(10924 m) = 109,843,551 Pa

The bottom is muck.


What a nifty little rebuttal!  Totally kills anti-evolutinist's calculations.  Wonder what his response will be.  I also see that A-E never took into consideration features of the Grand canyon like the Coconino Sandstone layer that could not possibly have been formed by a flood.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:14 AM on September 26, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

as much as I hate to do it. I admit defeat
I do not know how the sediment deposits at the bottom of the flood remained near vertical along the canyon as the flood waters receded.


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


Posts: 111 | Posted: 03:21 AM on September 26, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

as much as I hate to do it. I admit
defeat


Bravo!  A wise man will admit what he doesn't know.  Don't think of it as a defeat but an opportunity to learn.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:25 AM on September 26, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 03:21 AM on September 26, 2009 :
as much as I hate to do it. I admit defeat
I do not know how the sediment deposits at the bottom of the flood remained near vertical along the canyon as the flood waters receded.



Look at your own sig.  The simplest answer is that it was formed over millions of years by well understood mechanisms, rather than a miraculous event.


-------
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: 08:19 AM on September 26, 2009 | IP
Think-Twice

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 2:53 PM on September 14, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 1:09 PM on September 14, 2009 :

First of all, no one has actually observed a light sensitive pigment becoming a dimple or a dimple becoming a cavity, etc.



And how many people observed Yahweh, the Hebrew tribal deity, willing the universe into existence 6000 years ago?


The first law of thermodynamics, Matter and or energy cannot be created or destroyed,Law.The second law of thermodynamics, Everything tends towards disorder,Nothing gets orderly by itself,Law.Who makes these laws anyway?,And why are they not evolving?.Where did the energy come from to run and start the universe?.Must take a whole lot of gas to run the universe.Uni-means single,verse means spoken sentence.Universe means single spoken sentence,Let there be light!.We really are left with two choices,One the universe and every thing in it(I think there's quite alot of stuff in the universe,I could be wrong!).started its self.Or it was created.I believe in the creation idea,Not least because it gives every single person on earth real value to the creator,and themselves.Teach the children that they descended from animals,And they may start to act like animals.Some do,You may say.That may be because that's what they are being taught in school,With our tax dollars/pounds.there is no science Vs religion as touted by the media. Only the religion of evolution Vs the religion of God,Who ever or whatever your God is named.Me personally I'm a Christian.The sun does add energy to the system of course.But that is a destructive energy(not to plant matter)that use it.it will destroy your paint work (cars Houses), turn rock to dust.



 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 12:29 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 12:29 PM on September 28, 2009 :
Quote from derwood at 2:53 PM on September 14, 2009 :
Quote from timbrx at 1:09 PM on September 14, 2009 :

First of all, no one has actually observed a light sensitive pigment becoming a dimple or a dimple becoming a cavity, etc.



And how many people observed Yahweh, the Hebrew tribal deity, willing the universe into existence 6000 years ago?


The first law of thermodynamics, Matter and or energy cannot be created or destroyed,Law.


Then that whole E=mc^2 is just fluff is it?


The second law of thermodynamics, Everything tends towards disorder,Nothing gets orderly by itself,Law.

Not exactly.  Within a syustem, there can be increases in order if there is a concurrent decrease elsewhere in the system.
If your take were so, then water could never freeze.

Who makes these laws anyway?,


Nobody.  Law is the name given to consistent observations.  


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:33 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Good, I'm glad you're a Christian.  But your laundry list contains a lot of mistakes!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:38 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Think-Twice at 12:29 PM on September 28, 2009 :
The first law of thermodynamics, Matter and or energy cannot be created or destroyed,Law.


Remember that a Law is lower in credibility than a Theory.  Laws are simple mathematical descriptions useful in most cases, but not necessarily universally.  Energy and matter can be transformed from one to the other.  Electrons can be created from vacuum with a powerful enough laser.  Energy can be created from matter.


The second law of thermodynamics, Everything tends towards disorder,Nothing gets orderly by itself,Law.


Can a snowflake form from a cloud of water vapor?

Uni-means single,verse means spoken sentence.Universe means single spoken sentence,Let there be light!.


I'm afraid your etymology is a little off, you should read more reliable sources:

universe Look up universe at Dictionary.com
   1589, "the whole world, cosmos," from O.Fr. univers (12c.), from L. universum "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. universus "all together," lit. "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, pp. of vertere "to turn" (see versus). Properly a loan-translation of Gk. to holon "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. holos "whole" (see safe (adj.)).


Online Etymology Dictionary


-------
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: 1:20 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just so there is no confusion here, in chemistry class we are taught about the conservation of matter and energy.  However, that statement is usually qualified with something like this:

'Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed UNDER ordinary chemical means.'

Something like that.  The statement is not including processes that include nuclear fusion or fission.  Those processes are not 'ordinary chemical means'.  They involve the conversion of matter to energy.  A particle accelerated can actually do the opposite, if I'm not mistaken - convert huge amounts of energy into a particle.  Apoapsis - correct me on this if I'm wrong.

So the conservation laws do apply under our ordinary everyday life here on earth, and when you're not talking about nuclear bombs, reactors, or a cyclotron (or, I guess, the high energy lasers Apoapsis mentioned), or processes inside a star.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:01 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
I am God

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 2:01 PM on September 28, 2009 :
Just so there is no confusion here, in chemistry class we are taught about the conservation of matter and energy.  However, that statement is usually qualified with something like this:

'Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed UNDER ordinary chemical means.'

Something like that.  The statement is not including processes that include nuclear fusion or fission.  Those processes are not 'ordinary chemical means'.  They involve the conversion of matter to energy.  A particle accelerated can actually do the opposite, if I'm not mistaken - convert huge amounts of energy into a particle.  Apoapsis - correct me on this if I'm wrong.

So the conservation laws do apply under our ordinary everyday life here on earth, and when you're not talking about nuclear bombs, reactors, or a cyclotron (or, I guess, the high energy lasers Apoapsis mentioned), or processes inside a star.



tl;dr
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:02 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 2:01 PM on September 28, 2009 :
'Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed UNDER ordinary chemical means.'

Something like that.  The statement is not including processes that include nuclear fusion or fission.  Those processes are not 'ordinary chemical means'.  They involve the conversion of matter to energy.

this doesn't quite fit what I was taught.
I was taught that breaking an atom doesn't create energy, but rather releases potential energy.
the same way that breaking a molecule into its component atoms releases potential energy.




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


Posts: 111 | Posted: 6:32 PM on September 28, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 6:32 PM on September 28, 2009 :

this doesn't quite fit what I was taught.
I was taught that breaking an atom doesn't create energy, but rather releases potential energy.


But mass and energy are equivalent.

the same way that breaking a molecule into its component atoms releases potential energy.


The molecule mass will go up and down according to the energy absorbed or released also, but it will be much harder to measure.




(Edited by Apoapsis 9/29/2009 at 12:30 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: 12:29 AM on September 29, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

are you suggesting that when an atom is broken some of the neutrons (or protons) simply disappear and are replaced by 'energy'?

when I say disappear, I mean poof out of existence


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


Posts: 111 | Posted: 01:44 AM on September 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, I don't think that you lose actual protons or neutrons during fission/fussion processes.  But there is a tiny loss of mass somewhere in the process, which is converted to a great amount of energy. Equivalent to the nuclear binding energy.

Nuclei are made up of protons and neutron, but the mass of a nucleus is always less than the sum of the individual masses of the protons and neutrons which constitute it. The difference is a measure of the nuclear binding energy which holds the nucleus together. This binding energy can be calculated from the Einstein relationship:

from here:
Nuclear Binding Energy

I'm certainly no expert on nuclear physics.  But that is the explanation I found.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 07:15 AM on September 29, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 01:44 AM on September 29, 2009 :
are you suggesting that when an atom is broken some of the neutrons (or protons) simply disappear and are replaced by 'energy'?

when I say disappear, I mean poof out of existence


To release the energy from baryons, it takes a collision with an antiparticle.  These are generated from high energy collisions, so it is not presently feasible to store antimatter as fuel as in Star Trek.

Energy can be extracted from empty space however, via the Casimir effect.




-------
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: 08:31 AM on September 29, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion, what you said and what you quoted (from your link) don't match up.

there is a tiny loss of mass somewhere in the process, which is converted to a great amount of energy. Equivalent to the nuclear binding energy.
Nuclei are made up of protons and neutron, but the mass of a nucleus is always less than the sum of the individual masses of the protons and neutrons which constitute it. The difference is a measure of the nuclear binding energy which holds the nucleus together.
what you said is that the loss of binding energy = a loss of mass
what your quote said is that the addition of binding energy in the nuclei = a loss of mass

so I am forced to stick with what I was taught:
you can not create or destroy matter. only move it around.
you can not create or destroy energy. only convert it from one existing form to another



and so we get back onto the original purpose of this thread. how is the 'evolution of the eye' side of things going?
perhaps someone (other than me) should give a revised edition on the evolutions view on how it happened.


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


Posts: 111 | Posted: 5:29 PM on September 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E

what you said is that the loss of binding energy = a loss of mass
what your quote said is that the addition of binding energy in the nuclei = a loss of mass

so I am forced to stick with what I was taught:
you can not create or destroy matter. only move it around.
you can not create or destroy energy. only convert it from one existing form to another



I'm not a physicist, so I'm not surprised if I didn't get it entirely correct.  My knowledge in that area is very shallow.   Apoapsis can probably explain it better than me.  Something to do with Baryon, quarks, and other subatomic particles.  But mass is being converted to energy per Einstien's famous equation.  

Evolution of the eye - we see organisms with various stages of eye function.  We also see that the eye is not irreducibly complex from the earlier articles presented.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 5:49 PM on September 29, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion, don't worry about it. my knowledge is also (very) limited.
I think Think-Twice brought it up in reference to the Big Bang. so we could just mark it down to a singularity and be done ^_^


Evolution of the eye - we see organisms with various stages of eye function.  We also see that the eye is not irreducibly complex from the earlier articles presented.
I was meaning a full recap of all the information previously presented


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


Posts: 111 | Posted: 6:07 PM on September 29, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yeah, these threads have a tendency to go off on a tangent, and pretty soon we're completely off-topic.  :0)
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:57 PM on September 29, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 6:32 PM on September 28, 2009 :
Quote from orion at 2:01 PM on September 28, 2009 :
'Matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed UNDER ordinary chemical means.'

Something like that.  The statement is not including processes that include nuclear fusion or fission.  Those processes are not 'ordinary chemical means'.  They involve the conversion of matter to energy.

this doesn't quite fit what I was taught.
I was taught that breaking an atom doesn't create energy, but rather releases potential energy.
the same way that breaking a molecule into its component atoms releases potential energy.





'Breaking' an atom releases real energy - primarily heat, but energy across the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

If what you remember being taught were true, then dropping the bomb on Hiroshima would have only made a pit in the ground with the bomb in it.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:20 AM on September 30, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I thought breaking atoms released energy from the breaking of bonds in the nucleus, and can be calculated with Einsteins E=MC^2. So energy isn't "created", just the forms of energy/mass are changing; as the atom is breaking some of its mass is being converted to energy.


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 10:58 AM on September 30, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution of the eye - we see organisms with various stages of eye function.  


Presuming that the organisms were even related which one cannot state categorically since macroevolution has never been demonstrated.

We also see that the eye is not irreducibly complex from the earlier articles presented.


Imaginary scenarios do not substitute for refutation of irreducible complexity. Refute away but don't call it science.


-------
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: 07:04 AM on October 3, 2009 | IP
Illuminous

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Honestly most people where are basing the argument with information gathered, I'd like to leave it to a man who's reputation and years of research has a much more valid standing then most of us.

Sir David Attenborough =].

Hear him discuss evolution here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MW1IZB9ThA

But if you want to skip STRAIGHT the topic on eyes then go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwjnwhHB3cQ


-------
A true academic should search for reasons why things are without bias, not why things aren't. For the former shall answer the latter.
-Me
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 08:32 AM on October 3, 2009 | IP
fisher

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 5:49 PM on September 21, 2009 :
and just to be totally sure you don't misinterpret this post, I will repeat the important bit:
faith in creationisim must be taken in on faith
the theory of evolution must be proven through facts and "a coherent group of general propositions


Then what are you doing here? Faith is irrelevant when discussing science. I have no doubt that faith is a powerful force in shaping the religious views of many people, and for them their faith is strong personal proof in what they belief. But for the rest of us, someone's personal faith is meaningless; conclusions that cannot rest on tests, measurement, or falsifiability have no utility outside personal belief. That begs the question, what are Earth are you doing trying to convince someone that a worldview based on faith is correct when you know ahead of time that they will only be swayed by reproducible evidence?




So you dont have any faith at all when you say that everything evolved from dirt, all by itself. I think it would take alot more faith to believe that than believing in God. I think that evolution and creationism can coexist perfectly fine. God pushed the evolution. The jump from bacteria to human I can comprehend when God is put as the driving force behind it. Evolution at the hands of God takes more faith does it not? Maybe thats what God wants the traditional christians to believe, anything is possible through him, so my question is why do so many christians get so worked up over this. It would take much more faith to believe that evolution takes place at God's hands. If you can believe that people came from dirt without God, then you have much more faith than i do.

 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 02:23 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sure, you can say God is the force behind evolution.  But science can't see any evidence of any supernatural deity doing this.  That's one reason why ID isn't a valid scientific theory.  

On the other hand, natural selection is a process that can be observed - both in nature and in the lab.

I'm not saying that God doesn't exist.  Faith in God is up to the individual to believe in.  But in science you simply can't wave your hands and say 'God did it' without having any evidence supporting your statement.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 07:35 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
The Debater

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree with anti-evolustionist.
Also it is impossible for science to (i think) except evidence that God exsest. They will eventualy have to accept that there is a God because there is no "gap less" theory that science has to explain questions like what evolution trys to awnser.


-------
The Debater
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 4:00 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from The Debater at 10:00 PM on November 25, 2009 :
I agree with anti-evolustionist.
Also it is impossible for science to (i think) except evidence that God exsest. They will eventualy have to accept that there is a God because there is no "gap less" theory that science has to explain questions like what evolution trys to awnser.

So you are saying that because the ToE has limitations, then creationism is true? Seriously? So, if I have 2 diferent species in a room and one of them isn't a dog, does that make the other one a cat?




-------
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: 6:09 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
The Debater

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Imagine your example about the dog and cat exept the dog and the cat are the only options. Thats what I meant.

Also if a single celled organism needs a "eye" to survive it wouldn't have millions of years to evolve an eye. It would die.

Now please make a post proving me wrong that does not include something along the lines of "it doesn't need a eye"

p.s. I didn't have time to read all the posts.


-------
The Debater
 


Posts: 22 | Posted: 6:43 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Debater

Also it is impossible for science to (i think) except evidence that God exsest.

You seem to be implying that there is evidence that God exists.  Please present it - I'm sure everyone on the board would like to see it.


They will eventualy have to accept that there is a God because there is no "gap less" theory that science has to explain questions like what evolution trys to awnser.


But ToE already does a nice job explaining how life evolved.  Sure, we don't know all the details, but there is more than enough known that most life scientists accept evolution as a given.

What you're proposing is a 'God of the gaps' explanation for unanswered questions.  Sorry, that is not acceptable in science.

Gaps - we will never fill in all the 'gaps' in the fossil record.  Some species do not fossilize well, or not all.  Many are too fragile, others lived in ecosystems/environments that were not favorable to leaving fossils.  No doubt there are many fossils yet to be discovered.  But we don't need to fill in all the gaps to know evolution occurred.  Besides, there is plenty of other evidence besides fossils that support evolution.  Phylogenetics and embryology, for instance.  So, as others on this board have pointed out, gaps is not a big issue for ToE.  It's merely a strawman that Creationists like to present to the ignorant lay public.


Also if a single celled organism needs a "eye" to survive it wouldn't have millions of years to evolve an eye. It would die.

This statement shows that you don't understand evolution, or how natural selection works.  Why do you think early orgainisms would die without a light sensing organ?  Indeed, there are many examples of animals alive today that do fine without being able to detect light.  Blind cave fish, for example.  

The eye evolved because it gave organisms a big advantage in environments where light exists.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:33 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Debater
I agree with anti-evolustionist.
What a shocker.
Also it is impossible for science to (i think) except evidence that God exsest.
What evidence?? Shall i start a thread for you to address this?
They will eventualy have to accept that there is a God because there is no "gap less" theory that science has to explain questions like what evolution trys to awnser.
The word is "tries".

Those who believe in the God of the gaps generally don't say it out loud.

Your god is small and shrinking, Debater.

Don't worry. He can always live in Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. If we can't know the path an electron underwent, surely your god moved it.

Also if a single celled organism needs a "eye" to survive it wouldn't have millions of years to evolve an eye. It would die.

Now please make a post proving me wrong that does not include something along the lines of "it doesn't need a eye"
Organisms with eyes DO need them NOW.

I'll repeat my example: Take an airplane away from a guy in midair. He'll die. Would you conclude that he always had the airplane?

Just like the airplane took the guy to a place and situation where the airplane was needed (you could say the same thing about some stairs for that matter), so did our heart, jaw, eyes, whatever you can think of.

p.s. I didn't have time to read all the posts.
Don't worry. I bet nobody thought you would.


(Edited by wisp 11/25/2009 at 11:08 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: 10:53 PM on November 25, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from The Debater at 12:43 AM on November 26, 2009 :
Imagine your example about the dog and cat exept the dog and the cat are the only options. Thats what I meant.
Then it was a foolish argument as there are more than just two possibilities. Please do not try to use this argument again as it has absolutely no weight whatsoever.


Also if a single celled organism needs a "eye" to survive it wouldn't have millions of years to evolve an eye. It would die.
Already addressed (waaay better than I could) by the others guys here.

Now please make a post proving me wrong that does not include something along the lines of "it doesn't need a eye"
You have yet to post anything of worth that requires disproving.

p.s. I didn't have time to read all the posts.

Awesome get out clause. Well done! (Does your mum limit the amount of time you get to spend on the internet?)




-------
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: 06:36 AM on November 26, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Since you are back, and back on your high horse....

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 5:41 PM on September 21, 2009 :
to Derwood,
it has come to my attention that there seems to be a theme for you debating methods.

How did this come to your attention?  Did someone make you aware of it, or did you figger it our all on your own?

of what I have seen, whenever you are asked a question that you can't give an answer to, or when you receive a rebuttal that, if not disproves, then at least casts serious doubt over a point you brought forward. you give a reply that is something similar to
" Oh yeah! well Creationists can't prove their faith either"

I think you are confusing my turning the tables to demonstrate how ignorant and shallow your 'questions' and assertions are with dodging.  Is that it?

In reality, this is how I respond to questions I have no answer for:

"I think you are looking for an hypothesis, not a theory.  As for the eye, I don't have one. For me, the evidence for evolution as such is sufficient that because I personally do not have a step by step evidence-backed explanation for the evolution of a specific body part I am not troubled."


" I tell them that there are certain events in evolution that we simply do not understand and/or do not have good evidence for. "


(in response to "The evolution of the eye is an example -you don't know that it evolved")
"No, I don't.  But there is evidence that indicates that it did.  "

Just from this thread, by the way...

As far as 'rebuttals', I have yet to see a 'rebuttal' to anything that I have written that is worth anything at all (feel free to provide your best example if you can find one) .

to help sort out this dilemma, I have provided you with some of the definitions of faith and a link to verify them:

faith:
2. belief that is not based on proof.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.
5. a system of religious belief.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

and for a contrust, here is the definition of a theory (eg. theory of evolution) and a link to verify them:

theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.


to put it into more simple terms.
faith in creationisim must be taken in on faith
the theory of evolution must be proven through facts and "a coherent group of general propositions"


Um...

I think you might want to re-read the definitions of 'theory' and then use the term appropriately.
Here, let me help you - only the first definition you provided is relevant scientifically:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

Please show us all where in the definiton that YOU provided do we see anything about how a theory "must be proven through facts".

Surely even a novice can see that the theory of evolution is, at the very least, a "coherent group of general propositions".

You do not seem very adept at debate when the very 'facts' you bring to the table are contrary to your stated interpretation of them.

and as proof that I am not casting rumours about you, I have compiled a list of quotes  Just from your last post:
Quote from derwood at 3:57 PM on September 21, 2009 :

You say that, but you present exactly ZERO actual supporting evidence.
the observable evidence and 'actual data' FOR your position seems to consist entirely of not 'believing' in mine.
Which is to say, no evidence or data at all.
for 'evos', you demand explicit and intricate detail supported with reams of evidence that fit your idiosyncratic criteria for counting as evidence, but for your own position, you seem to require only your interpretation of Scripture
trotting out unsupported assertions.
if this master engineer exists, nobody has presented any evidence of it
There is a big difference between extrapolating from evidence to what might have been and fabricating evidenceless 'stories.'
it is YOUR actual belief system that relies solely on mythology and mysticism and ritual and blind faith.
Show us the EVIDENCE for your designer/creator
where are the bones of the bilical patriarchs?  Where are the tablets of the 10 commandments?  Why is there no record of the events depicted in Exodus in any Egyptian records?
And please - no evidence-free stories.
Provide your evidence - evidence that does not rely on having to look at it from within your metaphysical worldview
So you keep asserting, but your assertions continue to be entirely unsupported.
Right, so since there are no historical records of Yahweh or the creation, both must be just stories.
until you demonstrate that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and ...



and just to be totally sure you don't misinterpret this post,


You've learned from the worst, haven't you?

NONE of the quotes you provide accomplishes supporting the charges you made against me - you've ripped them from their context to prop up your false claim.  NONE of them simply try to shift the burden.  NONE of them are examples of me weaseling out from questions or 'rebuttals' that I cannot handle.

For but one counter-example - you provide this quote from me:

You say that, but you present exactly ZERO actual supporting evidence.
[

First, how is that akin to " Oh yeah! well Creationists can't prove their faith either"?
And worse for your false charges is the actual context - it was in RESPONSE to this hyperbolic claim:

"I say all body parts were created to function together as a whole and you say each body part evolved randomly through chance mutations and selection of the best mistakes to make something that worked in a co-ordinated manner. "

Apparently, your 'defense' of that assertion is that it is a YECism cult belief and therefore does not need to be supported with facts or evidence as it is taken on faith.

What a completley hypocritical position to take!  

"Gee, we don't have to come up with no evidence for our beliefs, cuz' they is just BELIEFS and we take it on FAITH so therefore it is true and you can't aks me for no ev'dinse!"

What a pathetic 'defense' of a belief system!

I will repeat the important bit:
faith in creationisim must be taken in on faith
the theory of evolution must be proven through facts and "a coherent group of general propositions"

So, you are repeating an embellisehd idiosyncratic definition to excuse your false charges.. nice...

Of course, if your made up claims had merit, then why on earth do people on your side of the fence declare that the cult beliefs of YECism should be taught in science class?  Why do you pretend that there is "evidence" for YECism?

Seems pretty hypocritical and ignorant to me.


But I, too have noted a theme in your posts.

I have noted that you first unleash a tirade of, for lack of a more civil yet equally apt depiction, stupidity that you demand reasoned discourse in response to, you then spend the bulk of your time whining about the supposed tone of the replies you get.


I have compiled a short list of quotes from you documenting my charge:

"some poor animal (most likely a fish) had its genes mutated in some way so that it grew a facial tumour. "


"but this specific tumour was special.
it connected to some nerve endings (later to be called optic nerves) that lead to the brain."


"it also had muscles attacked to it so that it could move."

"and was covered by a strangely shaped layer of skin (the lens) that helped to filter light."

"I'm sorry, I made a mistake. there where actually two identical tumours on either side of the face."







-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:04 PM on January 1, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

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

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

 

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