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
     An Issue w/ Macro-Evolution

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

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

truthworks
Apoapsis
Do you believe in stellar evolution?
I guess it would depend on what exactly you mean. We can see stars being "born" and "dying." But we also see that the light from distant stars billions of years old looks the same as stars closer to us. I'm not sure.
No, we don't.
No, it doesn't.

The further away from us a star is the more red-shifted its light reaches us.

It's the Doppler effect.

No matter where you look, the further a star is the faster it moves away from us.

That's because the Universe is expanding.

truthworks
orion
So looking at the other option, that life arose from non-life, makes more sense to me.
I may make more sense to you personally but I postulate that it’s unscientific.
Orion is just being humble. More than his share.

You're not.

You don't know how Science works, you believe that it should get evidence without research, you believe that it deals with proof, you believe that it doesn't deal with speculation, you don't know what a theory is, you don't know what evidence is, you can't tell fact from truth, you can't tell evidence from proof, and you come here to discuss Evolution not knowing what it is.

In my opinion you have an excess of trust in your own ability to appreciate how scientific something is.

This is me being patient.


(Edited by wisp 12/13/2009 at 2:55 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: 2:13 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from truthworks at 10:04 AM on December 13, 2009 :
I exist and don’t exist in two places at the same time also. Right now I exist at this computer and I don’t exist at the North Pole.


Some photons under observation exist in two different places at the same time.

Exactly. So there must be an eternal life source.


Or life came from non-life, here, on this planet.

The same line of questioning can be applied to your theory. Where did non-life come from? We could take that question to infinity as well. Eventually, I think you’d get back to the singularity. But where did that come from? Nothing? Then where did that come from?


This takes us out of life's origins, and to the origin of our solar system and the origin of the universe. As long as you recognize that this has nothing to do with biological evolution, I will be happy to engage in conversation.

The matter that makes up Earth, and everything on it, both living and not, comes from stars. Stars go through life stages, proto-star, main sequence star, then some really crazy stuff (like red giants) and eventually it's death. That is the basic outline of stellar evolution. Stellar evolution doesn't tell us that stars from a long time ago are different than the ones we see today (although they are different, if you're interested look up population 1, 2, and 3 stars), but rather as you've suggested elsewhere, that stars form, live and die.

You have to believe in something eternal also.


You don't have to, it is a choice. For most people, I think it is either God or the universe(s) itself. And I think some religious groups, like Hindus, believe in both, but I could be mistaken on that. My point is that it is a choice. Personally I do believe in God, and Christianity to be more specific.

I don’t really understand what you’re saying, could you clarify?


If we say that Earth's life was seeded here by another life, eventually we have to conclude that that life was created from non-life or by God through some sort of magic. And since we have not observed aliens, why not save a step and conclude that life here on Earth was made by God through magic, or from non-living material.

I do claim that God created all things out of nothing. If this “God” exists, that it would know everything, including the future. Then the hard evidence to support my theory is prophecy. Again, I don’t think it’s appropriate to discuss it in detail here.


Perhaps we could discuss this in another thread sometime. In general don't worry about going off topic, especially if you still talk about the original subject. Usually after a few posts the thread is already off topic anyway.

I agree that there are “possible pathways” that have been theorized. However, no one has observed any of these pathways ACTUALLY leading to life. In fact, the test (“evidence”) that someone showed me here was like a baby step on the beginning of a marathon. The scientists admitted that they had no idea how things progressed from that point.


One cannot walk a thousand miles without a first step.

I think there is tangible evidence for the “supernatural”… things foretold hundreds or thousands of years in advance.


I am quite skeptical of this. Start a thread if you want, I'm sure people here would participate.

Which is it? I think short. They are nowhere near explaining it. All I’ve seen is peptides forming in volcanos.


I think it is both long and short. While we are still a long way away from creating life, we have made a ton of progress. We can easily recreate fatty vesicles, which were probably the first cell membranes, from dropping dehydrated phospholipids  into water, it will spontaneously create a vesicle.

And the knowledge gained increases every day and none of it lends credence to the creationism/ID movement.


Maybe because they don’t want it to.


I doubt that. Less than 1% of scientists adhere to creationism or ID. As of now, no paper done on ID or creationism has been submitted to scientific peer reviewed journals. Not to mention that every claim made to support creationism/ID has always turned out to be false, in most cases involving some type of right out lie, quote mining or some other form of dishonesty. If you have something specific you would like to talk about bring it up.

Which of these demonstrates that life comes from non-life? Have you ever observed it? I thought science was about observation?


Science is more than just observing things happen. We never observed the big bang, does that mean it never happened? Or that we can never know about it? We can observe the evidence, and make experiments, and that is what science does. While we haven't observed life coming from non-life, or have a full-proof explanation on how it could have, scientists are confident that life did come from non-life based on the available evidence.

They state rather emphatically in this video that the first organism must have been “simple.” What have they observed that leads them to this conclusion? My guess is the mathmatical impossibility of a complex cell forming. The video provides speculation about how a “simple” cell could have originated and I must say that this process is staggeringly complex. Again, isn’t science about observation? Has anyone ever found a “simple” cell?


Prokaryotic cells are somewhat simple. When you look at the fossil record things become less and less complex as you go further back in time. And there are variations on the complexity of cells alive today.


-------
"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: 2:52 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 2:13 PM on December 13, 2009 :
truthworks
Apoapsis
Do you believe in stellar evolution?
I guess it would depend on what exactly you mean. We can see stars being "born" and "dying." But we also see that the light from distant stars billions of years old looks the same as stars closer to us. I'm not sure.
[color=teal]No, we don't.
No, it doesn't.

The further away from us a star is the more red-shifted its light reaches us.

It's the Doppler effect.

No matter where you look, the further a star is the faster it moves away from us.

That's because the Universe is expanding.



OK, time out.  Cosmological Redshift is not the same as Doppler redshift.  And stars billions of years old are the same age as our sun, so they should look the same.  I think he's referring to light coming from the outer boundaries of our event horizon.

The oldest galaxies are not the same as local galaxies, and light from individual stars are not detectable.


-------
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: 3:38 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

A little video about abiogenesis. Very short, very easy (i understood it in spite of my ignorance about chemistry).

Saying "God did it" is nothing. It's the ultimate lack of an answer.

It translates as "I don't know. Let's not investigate."

Just like 1-1.999... is exactly zero, "God did it" has a zero value as an explanation.

It's nothing but playing with words and dismissing facts.

"Things were made by a thing-maker".

It says nothing about the process. It allows for no predictions and no tests. There's no Science there. It's saying "Just because!"

Anyway, how smart should this thing-maker be?

The smarter someone is the less effort he needs to do to get things done.
If this thing-maker is infinitely smart, it should do nothing at all.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:44 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp,
You don't know how Science works, you believe that it should get evidence without research, you believe that it deals with proof, you believe that it doesn't deal with speculation, you don't know what a theory is, you don't know what evidence is, you can't tell fact from truth, you can't tell evidence from proof, and you come here to discuss Evolution not knowing what it is.


I didn’t say we should get evidence without research, I said I’m more interested in evidence. A lot of research is superfluous. When I asked for proof, I was using different definition that you use… specifically (from Merriam Webster) “The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact” or “something that induces certainty or establishes validity.” I was asking for evidence showing truth or facts. From what I can see, you were thinking of “proofs” such as those found in mathematics. There is a huge difference. Also, I don’t think I said it DOESN’T deal with speculation (if I did, I was mistaken). Of course, if we want to try and understand things we have to speculate because none of us has all the answers. All I intended to say was that I don’t think speculation is evidence (truth or fact).

In my opinion you have an excess of trust in your own ability to appreciate how scientific something is.

You may be correct. It’s been years since I studied computer science and even longer since I took physics. I may be way off base. All I ask is that you help me understand the correct view/use the correct terminology. I think that would be more productive than calling me “unscientific.”

If you’d like to take this approach you could start by explaining what you think evidence is, the difference between fact and truth, between evidence and proof. To me it just seems like a game of semantics. I'm sure that a distinction could be made between the words "truth' and 'fact', but I don't see the essential difference that you claim. In any case, I use the terms interchangably. Same with evidence and proof. If I see enough evidence for something, I call it proof. An example, sticking my hand in fire. It hurts (evidence) and melts my skin (evidence) and thus proves to me that I shouldn't stick my hand in the fire. If I took your view, scientifically, I would have no reason not to stick my hand in the fire. The evidence doesn't prove anything.

You are correct that I don’t understand fully what evolution is. I don’t think anyone has all the answers. If I had to wait until I fully understood the subject before I came to discuss it, I would probably never show. (Which I’m guessing you would prefer)

This is me being patient.

Thanks for trying.
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 4:03 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis,

Nice timeout! You called it.

I was mistaken in a few of my assumptions.

1) That stars on the other side of the universe should necessarily be OLDER than our sun.
2) That we can detect light from STARS on the other side of the universe.
3) Leaving GALAXIES out of the discussion altogether.

Maybe more... Thanks!
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 4:08 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, i might have been more than a bit mistaken about you.

But i think you started with the wrong food by saying that 'macroevolution' (which is a pretty empty concept, in my opinion) is a dogma about a single-celled organism appearing mystically.

Not only you were wrong (no remotely reasonable definition of 'macroevolution' would include Abiogenesis) but you showed an air of superiority and condescension by using those words.
Those words made me think you'd never show the humbleness we see in your last posts.

Most creationists try to pass expressions like that as critical thinking, when they're nothing more than name calling.

I didn’t say we should get evidence without research,
True. But you dismissed research.
I said I’m more interested in evidence.
The results of our research ARE evidence.

Well, they are data, which becomes evidence once we interpret it.

Whether you can get evidence with no research is questionable, in my opinion.

A lot of research is superfluous.
I don't know if a lot of it is. I don't know what you mean by that, or what makes you say it.

How do you measure superfluousness? By negative results?

When I asked for proof, I was using different definition that you use… specifically (from Merriam Webster) “The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact” or “something that induces certainty or establishes validity.”
I understand. I also understand your confusion about evidence, theories and hypotheses, etc.

They come from the fact that you're scientifically illiterate.

That's not name calling. It's not an insult either. It's true about most of my family, for instance (and i'd tell that to their faces too).
Beyond its obvious negative connotations (ignorance is bad), it has an emotional impact because it has a similar name to simple illiteracy (which is much more serious than scientific illiteracy).

Yes, you use laymen terms. That's a bad thing to do when discussing Science. It's not a problem of semantics. The problem is conceptual. Those confusions lead you to emit such vacuous accusations as the classic 'Only a theory'. It leads you to the belief that there are doubts in the Scientific community about certain facts that are, well, facts.

Laymen terms are the most prone to equivocation. Especially when they refer to the most basic elements of Science.

I was asking for evidence showing truth or facts. From what I can see, you were thinking of “proofs” such as those found in mathematics.
As i've posted earlier, 'proofs' have two characteristics that are alien to Science:
a) They are final (nothing can overturn the proved knowledge).
b) They are binary (they're either proven or not, there's nothing in between, no gray area).

We have not dismissed Newton's laws of movement entirely. They were considered facts, and now we know they weren't complete (therefore they were inaccurate).

There is a huge difference.
That's why this difference should be reflected in the terminology.
Also, I don’t think I said it DOESN’T deal with speculation (if I did, I was mistaken).
You said it was Philosophy the one which worked by "chiefly speculative rather than observational means". You were making a distinction with Science. Thus you implied what i said.

You also said "Pure speculation" when i made my educated guess (based on incomplete evidence) that there was a lot of horizontal gene transfer in the early stages of life.

Yes, it IS speculation. And it IS Science.

You said that Science deals with PHILOSOPHY by speculating.

You were clearly linking speculation with Philosophy and divorcing it from Science.

By the way, i don't think there's speculation in Philosophy. Philosophy works with figurative models, not with evidence.
Without evidence you can't even begin to speculate.

Of course, if we want to try and understand things we have to speculate because none of us has all the answers.
Ok. You seemed closed-minded about speculation.

All I intended to say was that I don’t think speculation is evidence (truth or fact).
Of course not. Speculation is BASED on evidence.

You may be correct. It’s been years since I studied computer science and even longer since I took physics. I may be way off base. All I ask is that you help me understand the correct view/use the correct terminology. I think that would be more productive than calling me “unscientific.”
Ok, so let's define things.

But some of the differences don't come just from Science, but from Epistemology. The foundations of our knowledge.

If you’d like to take this approach you could start by explaining what you think evidence is,
Let me think... I'd define it as a piece of data that indicates (hints, suggests) the factuality of a certain proposition (sorry, my English is not the best).

the difference between fact and truth,
A fact is a piece of data. A demonstrable, objectively and independently verifiable piece of data with a certain interpretation (when no other one fits or has been proposed).

Evolution has been objectively and independently verified (because its factuality implies that we should observe some events that get consistently confirmed afterwards, sort of like prophecies). Thus, it's a fact.

Perhaps tomorrow they demonstrate that it was wrong (that the implications and confirmed predictions could have an alternative explanation). Some creationists bet that such a day will come.

Truth: from a scientific point of view, is nothing. A truth is something that is valid forever (like in Logic or Mathematics). Nothing could ever change it.

We don't know of such things in the phenomenological world.

between evidence and proof.
The pieces of evidence must be interpreted, and they get you closer to a conclusion, or give (even) more credence to a fact.

For instance, vestigiality is evidence for Evolution. That's the interpretation we give it today (unlike proof, it's not final).

If creationist work some devolutive hypothesis that could accurately explain vestigiality, it would count as evidence for that too (unlike proof, it's not binary).

To me it just seems like a game of semantics.
I understand you. We're trying to discuss facts, and we get lost in words. But having accurate words actually makes us less liable to get lost in them.

I'm sure that a distinction could be made between the words 'truth' and 'fact', but I don't see the essential difference that you claim.
'Truth' is final (a 'truth' is what you can 'prove'). That's essentially wrong in Science.

In any case, I use the terms interchangably.
You use them wrong, so you're lead to meaningless phrases such as "nothing but a theory" (which basically is what Science is made of).

You are correct that I don’t understand fully what evolution is.
Ok. By what you have learned so far, do you agree that your definition of 'macroevolution' was crap?

You now know that Abiogenesis isn't a part of the ToE (of which 'macroevolution' is supposedly a subset).

I don’t think anyone has all the answers.
Indeed. The day we do, Science sill be over.

If I had to wait until I fully understood the subject before I came to discuss it, I would probably never show. (Which I’m guessing you would prefer)
Nono! Please, don't misunderstand me.

I'm in this forum trying to make a difference. Converting creationists is my dream. Your accusations of 'mysticism' and 'dogma' made me think you were closer-minded than you now show to be.

Let me show you a video about this subject:
15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism Part 1
15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism part 2

It is my opinion that when an honest creationists gets informed, he faces a life-altering decision:
a) Stop defending Creationism.
b) Stop being honest.

(Unless they're mentally challenged, which you're obviously not.)

If you watch all the videos of that series you'll learn much about Evolution (Aron Ra is a genius, even though he's not patient either).

By the way, will you present what you interpret it to be evidence for creation?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:37 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from truthworks at 4:03 PM on December 13, 2009 :
If you’d like to take this approach you could start by explaining what you think evidence is, the difference between fact and truth, between evidence and proof.


First, just drop the use of word "truth".  It has too many metaphysical implications and gets in the way of understanding.

A "fact" is something accepted as evidence.  It generally is used for a set of data or observations that can be independently verified.  Any real observation will have some degree fuzziness to it.  For instance, I can take an instrument orbiting Mars and make an observation.  That observation is a fact, my instrument measured something and I report it.  Likewise, a friend on another spacecraft orbiting Mars makes another observation, and reports what his instrument measures.  We can hypothesize we are measuring the same thing, so we write a paper that correlates the two facts, and arrives at a new mode of interaction of the solar wind with the Martian atmosphere.

To me it just seems like a game of semantics. I'm sure that a distinction could be made between the words "truth' and 'fact', but I don't see the essential difference that you claim. In any case, I use the terms interchangably.


Well, that goes deeply against the grain of anyone trained in science, so it marks you as someone unfamiliar with the way science works, and furthermore doesn't care enough to learn the language.  Is that the impression you want to get across?

Same with evidence and proof. If I see enough evidence for something, I call it proof. An example, sticking my hand in fire. It hurts (evidence) and melts my skin (evidence) and thus proves to me that I shouldn't stick my hand in the fire. If I took your view, scientifically, I would have no reason not to stick my hand in the fire. The evidence doesn't prove anything.


You are missing that the key test of a scientific theory (or hypothesis) is prediction.  You form a hypothesis that fire damages your hand and start to test it.  You put your hand over a candle, and it burns, so far so good.  I show up, and move my finger through the candle flame.  No damage, but some soot on my finger.  We go to a magic show and the magician lights flames in the palms of his hands.  Obviously something is wrong with your hypothesis.  Backstage the magician shows you that as long as the flammable liquid is evaporating and keeping his hand cool, he doesn't get burnt.  Likewise, my finger is not burnt because it moved through the flame fast enough to not get hot.  You revise your hypothesis, to say that "excessive heat damages your hand".  This is actually more general than your original hypothesis, since it doesn't specify where the heat comes from.  You can now predict that even after you turn off the burner of your stove so that there is no flame, you will still burn your hand on the hot metal until it cools down.



-------
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: 9:43 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from truthworks at 4:03 PM on December 13, 2009 :
If you’d like to take this approach you could start by explaining what you think evidence is, the difference between fact and truth, between evidence and proof. To me it just seems like a game of semantics. I'm sure that a distinction could be made between the words "truth' and 'fact', but I don't see the essential difference that you claim. In any case, I use the terms interchangably. Same with evidence and proof. If I see enough evidence for something, I call it proof. An example, sticking my hand in fire. It hurts (evidence) and melts my skin (evidence) and thus proves to me that I shouldn't stick my hand in the fire. If I took your view, scientifically, I would have no reason not to stick my hand in the fire. The evidence doesn't prove anything.


Probably the best way to understand the difference between evidence and proof is to look at evidence used in a court. Fingerprints on the murder weapon is evidence, the suspect being seen at the murder scene minutes before the murder is evidence, a letter containing a death threat that is traced back to the suspect is evidence but none of these are proof. The suspect will argue that despite mounting evidence against him, he is not guilty of the murder. Science is similar in that the evidence is weighed up, checked, cross-checked and arguements against their validity are taken into account before they are accepted. At the end, there is usually no 100% certainty but we can agree that unless there is evidence to the contrary, the assumption (or theory) can be made to account for the evidence.

 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 11:48 PM on December 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:




-------
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: 11:38 PM on December 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Gotta love xkcd!


(Edited by wisp 12/14/2009 at 11:52 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:44 PM on December 14, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you watching the videos, truthworks?

If you are, perhaps you'll see that the evidence for Creationism you thought that existed actually don't.

In any case, i hope you come back soon.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:46 PM on December 16, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

wisp,
Thanks for the info. I agree that saying the ToE is "just a theory" is totally stupid. I can also see that I am indeed "scientifically illiterate" and that my "definition" (so-called) of macro-evolution was indeed "crap" from a scientific view. I've also watched a couple of the videos you provided. There are definitely some valid points made and they've challenged some of my preconceived ideas. Excellent argumentation...
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 07:36 AM on December 17, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from truthworks at 07:36 AM on December 17, 2009 :
wisp,
Thanks for the info. I agree that saying the ToE is "just a theory" is totally stupid. I can also see that I am indeed "scientifically illiterate" and that my "definition" (so-called) of macro-evolution was indeed "crap" from a scientific view. I've also watched a couple of the videos you provided. There are definitely some valid points made and they've challenged some of my preconceived ideas. Excellent argumentation...


Congratulations, that is a very gracious statement.  Have you come to any new understanding of quantum mechanics also?



-------
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: 08:08 AM on December 17, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

truthworks
wisp,
Thanks for the info.
Any time! I'm all about information.
I agree that saying the ToE is "just a theory" is totally stupid.
That's a bit harsh.

It's only stupid (or dishonest) if you already know the terms. If you don't it's just... Well, not exactly knowing what one's talking about.

We've all done that in some way or another. And in this case it's particularly tricky since what regular people understand when they hear the word "theory" is "hypothesis".
I can also see that I am indeed "scientifically illiterate" and that my "definition" (so-called) of macro-evolution was indeed "crap" from a scientific view.
What an admirable thing to say!
I'm touched.

That humility is rare among creationists, or human beings for that matter.

That humility will let you keep growing.

I've also watched a couple of the videos you provided. There are definitely some valid points made and they've challenged some of my preconceived ideas. Excellent argumentation...
I'm so very glad! Really, you can't imagine how glad i am.

If you happen to find some arguments against Evolution that seem convincing to you, don't hesitate. Bring them on.

You'll probably find it already addressed here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/

And if you happen to find some arguments for Creationism that seem convincing to you, don't hesitate. Bring them on.

At risk of sounding arrogant, we'll probably refute them easily (just statistics).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 1:49 PM on December 17, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis,
Have you come to any new understanding of quantum mechanics also?


Sure. I now understand that I don't know very much about it at all. HAHAHA




 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 02:34 AM on December 18, 2009 | IP
truthworks

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

wisp,
It's only stupid (or dishonest) if you already know the terms.

Well, now I know better so it's stupid. LOL!

If you happen to find some arguments against Evolution that seem convincing to you, don't hesitate. Bring them on. … And if you happen to find some arguments for Creationism that seem convincing to you, don't hesitate. Bring them on.

Thanks! If anything, this discussion has shown to me how much I have to learn (and how far my thinking skills need to improve).

That humility is rare among creationists, or human beings for that matter. That humility will let you keep growing.

Robert Anton Wilson wrote about the “Semmelweis Reflex” which he defined as “the automatic rejection of the obvious, without thought, inspection, or experiment.” (Engaz Semmelweis recommended that doctors wash their hands between patients and backed up his advice with evidence that it reduced mortality.) He was ignored and ridiculed and ended up dying in an insane asylum. So the danger for us is that we might end up ignoring and ridiculing new evidence just because it sounds strange or conflicts with our “belief system.” In other words, what Wilson was saying is that we should always assume that most (or at least some) of our “beliefs” are wrong. There’s no benefit in self-deception. So I can’t claim any “humility” for myself. It’s just a technique that Wilson advocated to keep us open to new ideas.

"If you make people think they are thinking, they will love you, but if you really make them think they will kill you." -- Albert Einstein
 


Posts: 30 | Posted: 03:15 AM on December 18, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When doing Science it's best to leave beliefs aside altogether, if possible.

How much do you believe about the evolutionary history of the Earth?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:45 AM on December 21, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What?
Leave beliefs behind ....how much do you believe about....

This is a very strange question Wisp -I hope truthworks is going to understand the difference between one belief (which you don't believe) and the other (which you do).


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:12 PM on December 22, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A fresh start, Lester? Enough time? All forgotten? Same PRATT?


-------
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: 10:17 PM on December 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

'Fraid not Wisp -no fresh start -just starting from where I left off .Been away - in fact I'm still away just found a computer to play with so contact may be erratic over the festive season.
I'm standing by to see what you tell truthworks so that I can balance your plea.
You have the gift of the gab but the evidence is all in my favour,so let's see how it turns out.


-------
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: 01:47 AM on December 23, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:47 AM on December 23, 2009 :
'Fraid not Wisp -no fresh start -just starting from where I left off

So you'll be going back to all of the other threads that you were posting in as well as jumping into this new one? (Not that you've contributed much to this thread either)
but the evidence is all in my favour
Bwahahahahaha good one. :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: 03:42 AM on December 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well Wisp at least I got to see your youtube propoganda pieces that my computer wouldn't play.
I've got to say that their arguments are far worse even than yours - or anyone else's on this forum as a matter of fact. Can hardly believe that you could present that pratt by way of argumentation.
You seem to be going backwards. It's disappointing to say the least.


-------
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: 05:34 AM on December 23, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So I take it then, that you are NOT going to go and adddress the other posts that you were involved in then? Does that mean that you admit defeat in, for example, the Information post?

(Edited by JimIrvine 12/23/2009 at 08:59 AM).


-------
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: 07:40 AM on December 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So I take it then, that you are NOT going to go and adddress the other posts that you were involved in then?


No, then, not at all. Why, is that how evolutionists refute things - by declaring victory randomly and in the absence of visible opposition? I'll bet that's where you get your pratts from and how they are actually generated. Sorry, you'll just have to wait for me to get there -all in good time.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 10:16 AM on December 23, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hmmm,
is that how evolutionists refute things - by declaring victory randomly and in the absence of visible opposition?
No. You know that it is not, so why say it? I did not claim victory, I asked you if you admitted defeat. A subtle difference, no doubt lost on you.
I'll bet that's where you get your pratts from and how they are actually generated.
This sentence doe s not make sense. Please clarify.
Sorry, you'll just have to wait for me to get there -all in good time.

All in good time? That is laughable:

Thread ... Lester's last Post
Information ...November 30th
Numbers not in evo...November 20th
Definitions...November 20th

Let's not even look at Vestigial Organs....

Oh OK then April 3rd.
You jump in to threads, scatter gun fire (usually) PRATTs then when they are, once again, refuted you run away only to pop up in another thread using the same tactics. Are you ever going to respond in the thread titled Does creationism prevent gaps? As you promised you would in the Definitions thread? I'll wager that you don't, and if you do than I'll bet that you very quickly abandon it (as you seem to have a habit of doing in so many other threads)





-------
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: 10:43 AM on December 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
'Fraid not Wisp -no fresh start -just starting from where I left off.
You didn't left off in this thread.
I'm standing by to see what you tell truthworks so that I can balance your plea.
By what? You have nothing. If you do, start a thread or defend any of the old ones.
You have the gift of the gab but the evidence is all in my favour,so let's see how it turns out.
That's an easy thing to say, but you have not been able to defend any evidence you might be referring to (i don't know what it might be).

Well Wisp at least I got to see your youtube propoganda pieces that my computer wouldn't play.
I thought you didn't play them because of a slow connection.
I've got to say that their arguments are far worse even than yours - or anyone else's on this forum as a matter of fact.
Nah. The guy is a genius.
Can hardly believe that you could present that pratt by way of argumentation.
Projecting already?

What PRATT? You haven't refuted a thing.

If you have anything to refute, start a thread. Put up or shut up.
You seem to be going backwards. It's disappointing to say the least.
I don't think you appreciate the situation.

Lester, you have nothing to say. And you never admit defeat, even when it's absolutely obvious that you should. You didn't know what "phenotype" was. You thought that convergent evolution had something to do with homology. And so many other things!



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 3:16 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:17 AM on November 30, 2009 :
Gitt is an information specialist, is he?

Please explain.


Simply search and you will find:
Werner obtained his degree in engineering from the Technical University in Hanover, Germany. After receiving his Ph.D. he was appointed head of the Department of Information Technology at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt [PTB], in Braunschweig). Seven years later he was promoted to Director and Professor at PTB.1 His research concerns have involved information science, mathematics, and systems control technology.


Interesting - information technology is "includes business solutions, sensor networks, network security, software design, mobility applications,
and:
• elegant, robust, and agile concepts that advance the battle against software bugs and give designers immediate feedback
using automated tools to find flaws
• powerful techniques for scheduling network resources
• the coming-of-age of artificial intelligence in visual object recognition, spoken language, manual dexterity, social understanding,
and self-configuring robots
• strategic management of IT makes a more significant contribution to faster corporate growth and profitability
• using sensor networks to capture patterns in human interaction and reinvent organizations and management
• insights into the design of the Internet of the future"
according to the Information Technology Association of America.

In other words, he's a glorified computer technician.  Which is fine, but lets not engage in embellishment, shall we?  

By the way - I KNOW all about Gitt, and have for many years.  I've seen his claims DEMOLISHED on many occasions.  I was just going to see how you depicted him.

Of course, we can now all see that you can google for informaitonon Gitt, but decided not to even follow links provided re: Dunning-Kruger and you instead did what you always do - made uninformed, unwarranted leaps premised on your biased assumptions.


The title of his talk implied that it was going to be a scieince talk.  However, the first 1/3 of the talk was more like a revivial


That must have annoyed you. How can anyone be revived if God doesn’t even exist, huh?


It did annoy me, since the talk was supposed to be about science and information.  I don't care if someone believes in a god, but I do care when they engage in false advertizing.

then he rambled on about how amazing DNA was - tossed about a bunch of big numbers that were clearly designed to 'awe' the layfolk in the audience


Just because you refuse to be awed by the awesomeness of DNA is no reason to think that anyone that is awed is a moron.


I am awed by the awesomeness of nature, but I don't emply that awe AS AN ARGUMENT, which is what your ilk does.  

His talk was essentially a rehash of his AiG article on the subject - this is the sort of thing he talked about:

The highest information density known to us is that of the DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecules of living cells. This chemical storage medium is 2 nm in diameter and has a 3.4 NM helix pitch (see Figure 1). This results in a volume of 10.68×10-21 cm3 per spiral. Each spiral contains ten chemical letters (nucleotides), resulting in a volumetric information density of 0.94×1021 letters/cm3. In the genetic alphabet, the DNA molecules contain only the four nucleotide bases, that is, adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine. The information content of such a letter is 2 bits/nucleotide. Thus, the statistical information density is 1.88×1021 bits/cm3.


In fact, I think he had those very numbers on a series of slides.

It worked - the pew warmers were giddy in their awe.

Of course, it’s pointless saying that; anyone that doesn’t agree with you is a moron by definition.

I think you are projecting.

Many people disagree with me.  I do not think they are morons.  And I am not nor have I ever said that I am right about everything - can you say the same? Not judging by your history here.  You have presented yourself as the ultimate authority on all science, your position can never be wrong almost by definition.  Your pride and hubris is nearly limitless.  And you simply project that onto me since I began exposing your ignorance and dishonesty on so many issues.


Then he spent the next 1/3 on his definitions


Good, I hope you wrote it all down. You normally like definitions, don’t you?

I do, when I can get them.  Creationists typically prefer not to divulge their definitions so that they are free to alter their criteria later on, even when doing so contradicts what they declared before.  Like how you behaved when discussing transitionals.

then the last third he made a series of unwarranted and unsupported assertions and analogies


Obviously they didn’t sit well with your evolutionist assumptions.

No, they didn't sit well with logic, consistency, or reason.

so, you add a nucleotide, by Gitt's own definition, you add information.


If you add a random letter ‘c’ to a perfectly sound message, would you call it information?

Nucleotides are not letters.  I suspect that people like you insist on employing language analogies when discussing genetics because you either truly have that limited of an understanding of the subject or because you realize that discussing actual genetics will not serve your cause as well.
Which is it for you?

It would have to fulfil more criteria than just being an addition surely, in order to constitute new information?

Not according to Shannon - which Gitt in part based his definitions on.  INdeed, when I asked him about it, he agreed that adding nucleotides is increasing the informaiton at the statistical level.


He had no answer.


Maybe God told him that you didn’t really want to understand and were better ignored at that point.

Actually, the problem is that I do understand, and he was looking for an out. In fact, the person sitting next to me was the advisor for the Campu Crusade for Christ, and after Gitt blew me off, we exchanged glances and he whispered "He couldn't answer" to me.

I don’t think your objection was altogether intelligent, more like splitting hairs in an attempt to be cleverer than everybody else.

You - the person who claims a science doctorate, yet did not understand that 'phenotype' covers more than gross morphology, thinking that my question to the religious computer tech was not intelligent - is that supposed to be an insult of some sort?



Whenever you are tempted to ask such a question like that again, run it through your own head first and say to yourself, “Derwood, before you ask that question, think - have you really thought about whether there is any point to it?”


If it were such an unintelligent, simplistic question, one should wonder why Gitt did not simply explain it to me.

But, seeing as how you think you understand it all, maybe YOU can explain it -

Why, if naturalistic increases in information are possible at the statistical level, and in genetics, the upper levels of information are DEPENDANT upon the statistical level, can the upper levels of information, say, apobetics, not also increase naturalistically?

[psst - I already know the Gitt/creationist answer, let's see if you do]


He is selling snake oil.

And YECs buy it at any price.


YEC’s notice that he is making sense and I’ve never had to pay for anything he has ever said. The information about information is freely available.
 

No, YECs are just easily awed by big number arguments - especially if they are interlaced with religious pandering.


A mathematician (linked above) looks at Gitt's claims - I liked this bit on Gitt's definitions:


How do we conclude that a code is a necessary condition for the representation of information? We just assert it. Worse, how do we conclude that only things that are based on a code represent information? Again, just an assertion - but an incredibly strong one. He is asserting that nothing without a structured encoding is information. And this is also the absolute crux of his argument: information only exists as a part of a code designed by an intelligent process.

Despite the fact that he claims to be completing Shannon theory, there is nothing to do with math in the rest of this article. It's all words. "Theorems" like the ones quoted above, but becoming progressively more outrageous and unjustified.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 4:21 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
'Fraid not Wisp -no fresh start -just starting from where I left off .
Haha! You can start catching up, Lester.


LESTER'S DODGES:

(hominid classification)

Unicellular organisms to multicellular invertebrates;

Invertebrates to fish



If everything appears fully formed and functional with no evidence of how it got there –for example in the Cambrian and the Ordivician

By the way, it's called "Ordovician".


where the most evidence for gradualism should exist
Says who? Start a thread and elaborate on that, please. Unless you're just tossing empty claims, of course.


How many kinds of marsupials are there?

Define 'kind'.


How can we even trust our evolution produced minds if that is what they are?
We can't. So we have to test, check and double-check. And do double blind studies.
The fact that you don't trust my mind demonstrates that your position is clearly flawed.


Viral insertions are functional and thus not viral after all,
First of all, if that's your claim, open a thread (this one is for definitions) and let's discuss it. Otherwise, hush.

Second: You don't know what the subject is. I meant this:



If they're functional, why does Yahweh arrange them like that? It's like he wanted for us to think that species are related...


goose bumps -design
What for? We have them when we feel cold (as if we had fur), and when we're scared/angry (as if we had fur and wanted to appear bigger, just like any other animal with goose bumps).

If you're going to answer, start a thread.
If not, hush.


vestigiality -garbage,
Does Yahweh produce garbage?

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

Let's see...
Here:

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

Gotcha! =D


comparative anatomy –common creator, homologies –common creator,
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=55749

Let's discuss it there. And if you don't want to discuss it, don't mention it.

mimicry -design,
Start a thread and present your evidence, or don't mention it.



We've found all of those. Which ones are whales to you?


Remember the majority of scientists used to believe in spontaneous generation for over 2000 years but they were wrong.
Yes. Science demonstrated that they were wrong. Not religion.
Yes, well it was their problem since they made it up in the first place.
Who's 'they'?
Please, answer this one.
I said 'please'.
By the way, love the trilobites but what exactly is your point?
That you acknowledge that they are trilobites. Thank you!

So you admit that they are trilobites, and yet you don't see evidence of gradualism... Your definition of gradualism must be very strange.

Can you guess in what order they have been found in the geological strata? Yeah, you know you can. You know that, whether it is right or wrong, if you assume that the ToE is right you'll guess.


Doesn't creation predict (postdict, actually) that a couple of supercats can turn into lions, tigers, panthers, cheetahs and house cats, and all of that in 4k years?
That’s right. There’s vast ability to diversify built into each ‘kind’s’ genome and speciation appears to have occurred pretty rapidly.
How does it appear so?

I mean, what's your basis?

The fossil record? The Bible? What?


Besides:

You didn't tell me what goose bumps were designed for. You didn't start a thread about the comparative embryology fraud.

You didn't answer what the limitations are in artificial selection.

You negated vestigiality, and i presented an old quote where you had acknowledge it. And now you shut up.

You said "comparative anatomy –common creator" and "homologies –common creator", even though you dropped the subject in the thread i started specifically about that. I mention that you dropped the subject, and you shut up again...
Your dishonesty is tiresome, Lester.

You say you don't have time to answer to long posts. Well, then don't waste your precious time copypasting silly quotes! Don't waste it talking about how imaginative we are!

You said "mimicry -design". Will you defend that claim, or will it be another orphan?
Start a thread if you have any basis.
If you don't, admit it.

You said

No, you’ve forgotten about the gaps in the fossil record and the lack of evidence for macroevolution.

I asked for you to explain it, but you won't.

I've asked you to define 'micro' and 'macro' in such a way that nothing we see falls in between, but you won't.


Lester10
derwood
Consider the part I bolded - I suggest you take an undergraduate comparative vertebrate anatomy course and an actual evolution course.

I might just as well take a course in mythology.

Are you interested in mythology? If so, i don't see why not take a course.

And if you're NOT interested, why claim knowledge on the matter?


Lester
derwood
Another level is that the concept of gradualism does NOT preclude catastophes or relatively fast change
Show me your relatively fast change example of a beneficial mutation that allows survival.It’s no good just to have faith that such things happen.
Er... Aren't you contradicting yourself, Lester? Check this quote:
Doesn't creation predict (postdict, actually) that a couple of supercats can turn into lions, tigers, panthers, cheetahs and house cats, and all of that in 4k years?
That’s right. There’s vast ability to diversify built into each ‘kind’s’ genome and speciation appears to have occurred pretty rapidly.
Actually you believe in a much higher rate of change than we do (that apparently slowed down dramatically and leaving no signs that it was ever that high).


Sorry. You don't know what you're talking about. There's more to an ear than the semicircular canals.
I'm talking about this:

a) regular generalized land mammal
b) pakicetid
c) remingtonocetid/protocetid
d) a modern odontocete

a) and b) look very much alike.
There's a distinct feature present in pakicetids that are not present in any other land mammals though. Only whales have it nowadays. Take a close look.
The tympanic bone isn't connected to the periotic bone (Per), and it's actually thickened into a structure called the involucrum. Basically, the bony structure of the ear is less tightly attached to the skull, and is more free to vibrate in response to sound transmitted through the tissue of the head. The jaw will capture sound.

This is what has been found.

Besides, in c) the ear drum has dwindled, and the malleus is fused to the bone (which is a clear loss if the animal needs to capture sound waves in air).


Also it was a land mammal that walked on its legs. It didn’t swim.
How do you know that? It's you who keeps saying that we can't know anything about an animal by looking at its bones.
You're contradicting yourself.


Gradual change = microevolution? Yes or no?
Not microevolution no.
An answer!! Amazing!

So how is it different?


Doesn't creation predict (postdict, actually) that a couple of supercats can turn into lions, tigers, panthers, cheetahs and house cats, and all of that in 4k years?
That’s right. There’s vast ability to diversify built into each ‘kind’s’ genome and speciation appears to have occurred pretty rapidly.
How does it appear so?
They can reproduce so they are the same kind.
They can? Lions and house cats? Do you know this?


Do rats and rabbits belong in the same kind or not?
Can they produce fertile offspring?
No, but neither do cats and lions (not that i know of). The same goes with donkeys and horses, and you still say they belong to the same kind.


I don't need any fossils to know that.
We have lots, they fit perfectly, but they are not necessary for the ToE to make excellent predictions about traits of the living species.
You don’t have lots, the ones you have are made up. Invented.
You seem to be confused. We were talking about fossils, not about transitionals.


I’ve discussed Tiktaalik with you already.
Yeah, and you dropped the subject, as usual.
No I think you dropped the subject.
That doesn't sound like me at all. If i'm left with nothing to say, i say that i have nothing to say. I'll say 'You're right', or 'I don't know' (which seem to be absent from your vocabulary).
I remember discussing how little one can tell from fossilized bones
And i answered that its eyes were on top, so i know it didn't swim near the surface of deep waters. And that it had elbows that supported weight, so, well, it must have supported weight.

Besides you say that the pakicetus was a land mammal, contradicting your claim that we can't tell things from dead bones.
and how a mistake was made when coelocanth was predicted to be the fish amphibian link except when it was found, it turned out to be all fish after all.
I don't know about this. Can you show me your source?

From your story it appears that they named it before finding it (which seems kinda odd).


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

From Wiki:

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


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

So stubborn...

You said
Well when you consider how often homologous structures are apparently unrelated (as evidenced in so-called convergent evolution)
Convergent evolution is NOT evidence that homologous structures are unrelated.
You're saying that we can demonstrate that apples don't have seeds because balloons don't have them.
Look at seals and sea lions –not even related –convergent evolution –but you can barely tell them apart.
Not related? According to whom?


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

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


If feathers didn’t come from scales then scales just went away
Yeah, in many animals they did.

In others they didn't go away entirely.


Take a close look:

You tell us to look around, and that things look designed. You seem quite impressed by the way things look.
With a hand in your heart, tell me if those tails don't look reptilian.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:01 PM on December 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

truthworks... A creationist with a share of honesty... AND he was able to learn...

I wish he came back. I wish Lester didn't.



-------
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: 01:09 AM on January 8, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Woohoo! He came!

The second part of my wish didn't come true yet...

Perhaps praying...

Lester, you still haven't answered.



-------
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: 6:42 PM on March 28, 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.