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
     Porkchop's doubts about whales
       What are the steps?

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

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

(...) what steps did a land mammal such as a cow or bear or deer(depending on where you read it) to begin living life as an aquatic animal to eventually become a whale?




First of all, and before attempting any answers, here's a question for you:

Do you understand that even if we were completely clueless about the steps this wouldn't be an attack on the Theory of Evolution in any way?



-------
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: 7:50 PM on February 11, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Do you understand that even if we were completely clueless about the steps this wouldn't be an attack on the Theory of Evolution in any way?[/color]



No, not sure I understand that. Show me this is true.
Do you not know the steps?


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:00 PM on February 11, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:00 PM on February 11, 2010 :
No, not sure I understand that. Show me this is true.


Because the theory of evolution doesn't hinge on whether or not land animals evolved into whales. The theory of evolution is an explanation on how organisms (specifically populations) change over time. If we find out that whales didn't evolve from land animals, it will change how we view the evolutionary history of whales, but it doesn't negate the theory of evolution.

Do you not know the steps?


Never bothered to memorize them, but here is a little chart for you.



And to help jump start your research, here is the wiki article on the evolution of cetaceans, which whales are a part of.

If you're like me and don't like to read, here is a youtube video from Nation Geographic that talks about whale evolution. This is part 1 of 5. Although I haven't watched it yet, it looks like a good place to get familiar with the basic steps put forth by scientists.


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 9:31 PM on February 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, not sure I understand that. Show me this is true.
Very reasonable request.

A theory is a general and simplified explanation of a group of related facts.

A good working theory can be very helpful when trying to work out the details. But in order to work out every little detail about anything you would need, theoretically, an infinite amount of data.

If you found lots of evidence that make it clear that a man committed a certain murder some details are not necessary.

Details are good. WE can care about the details or not.

When trying to decide IF the guy killed the other guy you don't necessarily need to know if the first guy was chewing gum.

If the guy has motive, means, and all evidence say he did it, he's guilty. We will never know each step he took, and we don't have to.

In the same way scientists don't feel any need to ask IF the whale evolved. They DO care about the steps, but that's not in order to decide whether the whale evolved or not.

I hope i was clear (even if you don't agree).

Let's make it even clearer: Let's say you believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis (i'm not sure what your beliefs are).

Now let's say which of Adam's ribs did Eve come from.

If you don't know, does it really matter? I didn't make your belief any less likely by showing that you don't know some specific part of it.

Get it?

Do you not know the steps?
I'm not really sure what you mean by "steps".

Scientists have a pretty good idea, yeah.
I don't know a lot about it, but i know some.

http://olduvaigeorge.com/

This guy makes awesome drawings. But he has to understand Anatomy and Evolution in order to make accurate drawings.

He's always concerned about being accurate, so he learns all he can before starting.

He draws several "steps" in the way the Pakicetus evolved into whales.

Do you care about the evolution of the inner ear? They know several things about it. It's very interesting.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:31 PM on February 11, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is a chart showing shared genetic markers between existing families.  There are plenty of people on death row convicted with flimsier evidence that this.





(Edited by Apoapsis 2/12/2010 at 08:43 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: 02:59 AM on February 12, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what steps did a land mammal such as a cow or bear or deer(depending on where you read it) to begin living life as an aquatic animal to eventually become a whale?
be careful of the image that you may have in your head there PorkChop. Neither cow, bear nor deer evolved to begin living aquatic lifestyles.The ancestors of these animals did. BIG difference.
@Apoapsis. No WAY can porkChop even begin to understand the meaning behind 'your' chart (I would like to emphasise that I'm not saying that I do either). I think that any and all explanations of a strictly scientific nature kinda have to be translated into a 'story' for t to have any chance of cognition.


-------
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: 04:03 AM on February 12, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You could say that Yahweh chose to make some animals similar to each other.

But there's 1) a big realization and 2) a big question.

1) The similarities are easily arranged in a tree-like fashion (anatomy confirms this, and genetics confirm it with a higher level of precision).

2) WHY???


(Edited by wisp 2/12/2010 at 04:18 AM).


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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 04:15 AM on February 12, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:00 PM on February 11, 2010 :

Do you understand that even if we were completely clueless about the steps this wouldn't be an attack on the Theory of Evolution in any way?[/color]



No, not sure I understand that.


Pretty simple, really.

Say someone asks you about a baseball game that occurred the night before.  You only know the score, - Yankees 5, Red Sox 3 -  but the person wants details.  He challenges you to provide the entire sequence of pitches employed by the pitcher for the Yankees in the 6th inning.  You have no idea.  The challenger then claims that when you told him the Yankees won, you were just guessing and that his preferred version, that the Red SOx won, must be true because you could not tell him each and every pitch thrown by the Yankees pitcher in the 6th inning.


This is essentially what you and Lester and sundry YECs are doing when you 'challenge' us about specific lineages.  It is, frankly, somewhat intellectually dishonest and shows immaturity, which I have come to expect from Lester and Timbrx.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:59 AM on February 12, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the difference is that although I do not know the details of which innings the runs were scored in, I do know that a batter got to bat, and made his way around the bases and crossed home plate to score.
But how does a mammal living his life on land start taking to the water?


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:33 PM on February 12, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WispDo you understand that even if we were completely clueless about the steps this wouldn't be an attack on the Theory of Evolution in any way?


Well I’d go even further to say that it doesn’t matter whether the evidence all points to intelligent design; it doesn’t matter in the least because we all know that materialism just has to be true and everything arranged itself out of nothing.
That is called ‘science’ –(at least for the evolutionist).

If the evidence were on their side, evolutionists would not resort to such extreme tactics of indoctrination and would not be so terrified of dissent.

The fact that they don’t know actually which pathway the mammals apparently took to produce the whales just shows how very suspect their ‘transitional’ elements are, how filled with enormous holes the current diagrammatical representation is and, in fact, how desperate they are since this ‘pathway’ is, after all, their best ever transitional series in the whole world, bar none.

Porkchop Do you not know the steps?


No, they do not know the steps. They do not even really know that there are steps to be found but they are sure that something like the pathways illustrated must have happened because despite the appearance of design of all living organisms, they know philosophically that the design-look is illusory and that there can be no designer.

Fencer Because the theory of evolution doesn't hinge on whether or not land animals evolved into whales.


But surely they would have to if materialism is true? Where else could they have miraculously appeared from?

But it is true, the theory of evolution doesn’t hinge on whether or not land mammals evolved into whales, it doesn’t even hinge on whether there is any evidence for the whole fat story or not –it is an a priori accepted story and that is that.

JimIrvine I think that any and all explanations of a strictly scientific nature kinda have to be translated into a 'story' for t to have any chance of cognition.


…and plausibility and faith-filled acceptance.

Porkchop But how does a mammal living his life on land start taking to the water?


Well according to one story I heard a cow climbed into the water and swam around and around swimming and chomping on orchard grass that happened to float by while her calf nursed underwater. And she and her descendants had to continue like that for millions of years before the cow could change into a whale.

What about the calf you say? Never fear, the cow was holding its nose shut with its hoof while it nursed. Calves have to be persistent you know or they won’t survive.

I think the best way to test this story’s plausibility is to drop a cow into the sea and check it out for yourself  If that doesn’t work, try another cow until you find the fittest one.



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


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 02:24 AM on February 13, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:33 PM on February 12, 2010 :
I think the difference is that although I do not know the details of which innings the runs were scored in, I do know that a batter got to bat, and made his way around the bases and crossed home plate to score.

The point is that you did not observe this! By your and other creo standard positions, you cannot possibly know that "that a batter got to bat, and made his way around the bases and crossed home plate to score." since you did not observe it, and yet, you do know that this happened. You were able to infer ""that a batter got to bat, and made his way around the bases and crossed home plate to score."... Think about it Porkie...



(Edited by JimIrvine 2/13/2010 at 03:41 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: 03:40 AM on February 13, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 02:24 AM on February 13, 2010 :
Blah blah, blah blah blah waaa waaa. Usual Lester paranoid, idiotic nonsense exemplified by:
Well according to one story I heard a cow climbed into the water and swam around and around swimming and chomping on orchard grass that happened to float by while her calf nursed underwater. And she and her descendants had to continue like that for millions of years before the cow could change into a whale.

What about the calf you say? Never fear, the cow was holding its nose shut with its hoof while it nursed. Calves have to be persistent you know or they won’t survive.

I think the best way to test this story’s plausibility is to drop a cow into the sea and check it out for yourself  If that doesn’t work, try another cow until you find the fittest one.


Lester. One question. Do you honestly believe that that is what the ToE says? Seriously, I'd like an answer on this one. A simple
"Yes I believe that the story above is an accurate representation of the ToE "
Alternatively
"No I don't. I dishonestly oversimplified the story to make it sound a bit stupid and therefore less believable, to my own simple brain and hopefull to make PorkChop think that it's a bit of a stupid story too. Did it work PorkChop? Do you believe my version of the ToE?"
I'll make it easy for you, since I know that you don't have time to answer every post.
Lester, to answer my above question, if you want to answer YES then simply type the number 1 then hit reply. If you want to answer NO then reply with the Number 2. (Shouldn't take any time at all)
Porkchop:  Similar timesaver for you.
If you believe that Lester has faithfully and honestly represented the ToE in his little story that "someone tole him" the reply with a 1. If you do not think that his story is a true reflection of what the ToE says, then simply post the number 2.
Consequences.
Lester, non-answer will imply that you recognise that you were utterly dihonest in your representation of the ToE.
PorkChop, non-answer will imply that you recognise that Lester was indeed being dishonest in his representation of the ToE.

(Edited by JimIrvine 2/13/2010 at 03:58 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: 03:56 AM on February 13, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JimIrvine at 03:40 AM on February 13, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 9:33 PM on February 12, 2010 :
I think the difference is that although I do not know the details of which innings the runs were scored in, I do know that a batter got to bat, and made his way around the bases and crossed home plate to score.

The point is that you did not observe this! By your and other creo standard positions, you cannot possibly know that "that a batter got to bat, and made his way around the bases and crossed home plate to score." since you did not observe it, and yet, you do know that this happened. You were able to infer ""that a batter got to bat, and made his way around the bases and crossed home plate to score."... Think about it Porkie...

(Edited by JimIrvine 2/13/2010 at 03:41 AM).


I know how a baseball game works, perhaps this is a bad analogy.




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 10:25 AM on February 13, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JimIrvine at 03:56 AM on February 13, 2010 :
Quote from Lester10 at 02:24 AM on February 13, 2010 :
Blah blah, blah blah blah waaa waaa. Usual Lester paranoid, idiotic nonsense exemplified by:
Well according to one story I heard a cow climbed into the water and swam around and around swimming and chomping on orchard grass that happened to float by while her calf nursed underwater. And she and her descendants had to continue like that for millions of years before the cow could change into a whale.

What about the calf you say? Never fear, the cow was holding its nose shut with its hoof while it nursed. Calves have to be persistent you know or they won’t survive.

I think the best way to test this story’s plausibility is to drop a cow into the sea and check it out for yourself  If that doesn’t work, try another cow until you find the fittest one.


Lester. One question. Do you honestly believe that that is what the ToE says? Seriously, I'd like an answer on this one. A simple
"Yes I believe that the story above is an accurate representation of the ToE "
Alternatively
"No I don't. I dishonestly oversimplified the story to make it sound a bit stupid and therefore less believable, to my own simple brain and hopefull to make PorkChop think that it's a bit of a stupid story too. Did it work PorkChop? Do you believe my version of the ToE?"
I'll make it easy for you, since I know that you don't have time to answer every post.
Lester, to answer my above question, if you want to answer YES then simply type the number 1 then hit reply. If you want to answer NO then reply with the Number 2. (Shouldn't take any time at all)
Porkchop:  Similar timesaver for you.
If you believe that Lester has faithfully and honestly represented the ToE in his little story that "someone tole him" the reply with a 1. If you do not think that his story is a true reflection of what the ToE says, then simply post the number 2.
Consequences.
Lester, non-answer will imply that you recognise that you were utterly dihonest in your representation of the ToE.
PorkChop, non-answer will imply that you recognise that Lester was indeed being dishonest in his representation of the ToE.

(Edited by JimIrvine 2/13/2010 at 03:58 AM).


I think what Lester is doing is mocking ToE with regard to Whale theory. I see him being mocked here all the time. You even disrespect him by using his quotes in your signature blocks. Are we not adults here?
But is the pathway the mammals apparently took to become whales in doubt?




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 11:00 AM on February 13, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Our mockery is pretty accurate.

Is it not?


(Edited by wisp 2/13/2010 at 2:50 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: 2:49 PM on February 13, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester. One question. Do you honestly believe that that is what the ToE says? Seriously, I'd like an answer on this one. A simple
"Yes I believe that the story above is an accurate representation of the ToE "


Well honestly JimIrvine, I understand that this does make the ToE look silly but then I truly believe that the ToE is silly.
Anyway I really wanted to inject some fun into your day while laying it all on the line how odd your beliefs really are.
You all have this mental image of how this transition occurred yet the bulk of the fossil evidence shows that any plausible transitions are the exception rather than the rule. So what you believe is really rather quaint and pretty unbelievable.
We all observe variations within the kind but no-one has ever seen one kind change into a completely different kind so extrapolating simple variations into major body plan changes via random mutation and natural selection of the best mistakes is such unbelievable wishful thinking that I just really needed to give you a reality check.
If it's not even a possibility then its not an exaggeration so much as a parody.

In your belief system, frogs turned into princes and even though you know that that sounds rather like a fairy tale, you attempt to inject some reality into it by turning the frog into the prince via millions of small accidental changes over millions of hypothetical years.

Its a cute story but is it even possible?
If its possible, why does the fossil evidence apparently conspire to cover up the tracks of gradualism? Sometimes I really really think that the ToE is what you want to believe rather than what the evidence forces you to accept.  


I dishonestly oversimplified the story to make it sound a bit stupid and therefore less believable, to my own simple brain and hopefull to make PorkChop think that it's a bit of a stupid story too. Did it work PorkChop? Do you believe my version of the ToE?"


I dunno, JimIrvine. Porkchop is certainly more subtle than me in his style of questioning, but I get the distinct impression that his reservations about your belief system are pretty obvious even given his relative politeness.

As for you Wisp, your radical anti-Christian sentiments are showing as usual. Perhaps that's why I have to give the "Youdebate anti-Christian evangelist" award of the year to you.
Congratulations.

I wonder if you have ever considered the root of your love of the ToE?

(Edited by Lester10 2/14/2010 at 08:08 AM).


-------
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: 04:25 AM on February 14, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10
Jim
Lester. One question. Do you honestly believe that that is what the ToE says? Seriously, I'd like an answer on this one. A simple
"Yes I believe that the story above is an accurate representation of the ToE "
Well honestly JimIrvine,
You need to clarify when you're being honest, since it's so rare.
I understand that this does make the ToE look silly
No you don't. No it doesn't. Believing that the ToE says anything remotely like that makes you look silly or dishonest (i pick number 2).
but then I truly believe that the ToE is silly.
Then why do you always have this dishonest need to portray it in a false way?

Why can't you attack what it actually says?

If you attack what it doesn't say, you're not attacking it at all.

Anyway I really wanted to inject some fun into your day while laying it all on the line how odd your beliefs really are.
You do that by depicting something nobody believes in...

That wasn't fun at all, unless you're a dimwit.
You all have this mental image of how this transition occurred
Yes.
yet the bulk of the fossil evidence shows that any plausible transitions are the exception rather than the rule.
I'm not sure what you mean.

In a way most populations, past or present, are transitional (except for those who died without any daughters, at the instant of their death).

If we find a fossil from a population that got extinct just ten years after the sample died, then the sample was transitional.

Define "transitional".
So what you believe is really rather quaint and pretty unbelievable.
Only for the ignorant, the fool and the religious.
We all observe variations within the kind but no-one has ever seen one kind change into a completely different kind
We don't talk about "kinds", and you can't define "kinds". So shut up.

If you mean one branch sprouting into another, then the ToE doesn't predict that. So shut up.
so extrapolating simple variations
Define "simple variations". So we can shut you up when we find some variation that doesn't qualify as "simple".
into major body plan changes via random mutation
That's a tautology. There is no type of mutation that isn't random.
and natural selection of the best mistakes
"Mistake" is poetic language. You try to use it as if there was a correct thing it parted with.
There was no such thing, and if there was it's pretty clear that its design wasn't perfect. Get real.
is such unbelievable wishful thinking that I just really needed to give you a reality check.
You don't understand, you don't know, you don't count.
If it's not even a possibility then its not an exaggeration so much as a parody.
Exactly. You can't get real. You lose.
In your belief system, frogs turned into princes
Ok. That IS kinda funny. And it IS kinda true.

My bet is that this joke isn't yours. It's too good to be yours. Yours are crap.
and even though you know that that sounds rather like a fairy tale, you attempt to inject some reality into it by turning the frog into the prince via millions of small accidental changes over millions of hypothetical years.
No. It's the other way around.

The fact that there were millions of years and the fact that new patterns emerge lead to our conclusion.
Its a cute story but is it even possible?
You acknowledged it was.
If its possible, why does the fossil evidence apparently conspire to cover up the tracks of gradualism?
Do you think the gaps in the fossil record support your own beliefs? Do you want to talk about it?

This is the right thread.

I see you there.

Or not.

Sometimes I really really think that the ToE is what you want to believe rather than what the evidence forces you to accept.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
As for you Wisp, your radical anti-Christian sentiments are showing as usual. Perhaps that's why I have to give the "Youdebate anti-Christian evangelist" award of the year to you.
Congratulations.
Well, you awarded yourself a doctorate or something, so why not.
I wonder if you have ever considered the root of your love of the ToE?
Reality.



-------
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: 3:08 PM on February 14, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:33 PM on February 12, 2010 :
But how does a mammal living his life on land start taking to the water?


We are watching it happen right now with the Sea Otter.


Sea Otter

Do you believe that Sea Otters exist?


-------
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: 6:03 PM on February 14, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:33 PM on February 12, 2010 :
I think the difference is that although I do not know the details of which innings the runs were scored in, I do know that a batter got to bat, and made his way around the bases and crossed home plate to score.
But how does a mammal living his life on land start taking to the water?



You must have a bald spot on top of your head by now.




-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:52 PM on February 14, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 11:00 AM on February 13, 2010 :

I think what Lester is doing is mocking ToE with regard to Whale theory.

Of course he is, and he is doing so for the purpose of making the 'whale theory' seem silly and less believable.
This is because he rejects and/or does not understand the evidence and even if he did, he would still dismiss it because it couinters his religious faqnatacism.


I see him being mocked here all the time.


And with good reason.  He boasts of having a science-related doctorate, claims a background in virtually all biological fields, yet apparently cannot engage in any sort fo technical discussion on ANY of the subjects he claims a background in, relies entirely on the published work of charlatans and hucksters, creates strawman and other logically fallacious arguments, uses analogies as evidence - for crying out loud, he STILL insists on using the language analogy for genetic activity!

You even disrespect him by using his quotes in your signature blocks. Are we not adults here?

Some of us are.  Some of us appear to have the body of an adult and the mind of a child.  Some of us simply ask never ending litanies of questions, and when each new question is answered, just asks more, apparently thinking this is how "discussions" operate.

But is the pathway the mammals apparently took to become whales in doubt?

Incomplete perhaps.

I am surprised that Lester, with his amazing doctorate and background in anatomy, cannot recognize that a whale skull is merely a typical mammalian skull with the 'snout' drawn out anteriorly.  The blow hole s- that is, the nostrils - of the whale, when seen from an anatomist's perspective, did not even have to "migrate" onto the top of the skull - it is merely the shape of the skull that dictated the placement of the nostrils.

It is amazing how un-silly it becomes when you actually have an understanding of anatomy and development.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:01 PM on February 14, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:33 PM on February 12, 2010 :
But how does a mammal living his life on land start taking to the water?



Sea Otters - National Geographic

Sea otters are the only otters to give birth in the water. Mothers nurture their young while floating on their backs. They hold infants on their chests to nurse them, and quickly teach them to swim and hunt.


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:22 PM on February 14, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That's superb, Apoapsis!!

But what would you reply if they said that the pair of the otter kind in the ark already had this ability?

Can you find an easy way to dismiss that stupidity?

An easy reply. As little intelligence as possible, so even they could understand it.

My reply would be something like "How could the original otter be perfectly adapted to live in water AND land" (since some of its descendants live on land), but they could just say it was a super otter. Perhaps it could even shape shift. Whatever.

Some reply with more impact among ignoramuses...
Can you think of any?



-------
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: 11:05 PM on February 14, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well... Giving birth should settle it...

I mean, why would the original superotter give birth both, on land and in water?

But they have already claimed that some intelligent designer had foresight and gave some organisms tools to evolve... i mean, adapt afterwards (they did with the nylonase). They could say the same dumb thing about the otter.

We could go down to their level and ask them why couldn't this intelligent designer make the first living cell able to "adapt" into everything we see today.

I try not to defend abiogenesis partly because of this. Abiogenesis is not as demonstrable as Evolution is, and accepting the possibility of an intelligent designer of the first living cell exposes them.

Because that's not what they want. If you say "Doesn't seem likely, but OK, maybe goddiddat", they'll realize that "Oh... But we wanted an old 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: 11:23 PM on February 14, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:23 PM on February 14, 2010 :


I mean, why would the original superotter give birth both, on land and in water?



Somewhere I read an article that trapping had eliminated otters that needed to spend time on land, and that this had hastened the movement to water life.  Can't seem to find it at the moment.



-------
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: 12:01 AM on February 15, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 10:25 AM on February 13, 2010 :
I know how a baseball game works, perhaps this is a bad analogy.

Nope, it's an apt anaolgy. Let's take it further, how do you know that this particular baseball game that you didn't see ran the same way as you understand baseball games to run?




-------
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: 04:00 AM on February 15, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:00 PM on February 13, 2010 :
I think what Lester is doing is mocking ToE with regard to Whale theory.
Nope, what he is doing is misrepresenting what the ToE say about the evolution of Whales and mocking that. As usual for Lester, it is utterly dishonest.
I see him being mocked here all the time. You even disrespect him by using his quotes in your signature blocks.
He is deserving of no respect from me. He is, quite simply, dishonest and I have no respect for that and I make no apologies for that.
Are we not adults here?
Yes, and we are free to speak our mind.
But is the pathway the mammals apparently took to become whales in doubt?
It is incomplete as Derwood said.



(Edited by JimIrvine 2/15/2010 at 04:09 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: 04:08 AM on February 15, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:25 AM on February 14, 2010 :
Lester. One question. Do you honestly believe that that is what the ToE says? Seriously, I'd like an answer on this one. A simple
"Yes I believe that the story above is an accurate representation of the ToE "


Well honestly JimIrvine, I understand that this does make the ToE look silly but then I truly believe that the ToE is silly.
Anyway I really wanted to inject some fun into your day while laying it all on the line how odd your beliefs really are.
You all have this mental image of how this transition occurred yet the bulk of the fossil evidence shows that any plausible transitions are the exception rather than the rule. So what you believe is really rather quaint and pretty unbelievable.
We all observe variations within the kind but no-one has ever seen one kind change into a completely different kind so extrapolating simple variations into major body plan changes via random mutation and natural selection of the best mistakes is such unbelievable wishful thinking that I just really needed to give you a reality check.
If it's not even a possibility then its not an exaggeration so much as a parody.

In your belief system, frogs turned into princes and even though you know that that sounds rather like a fairy tale, you attempt to inject some reality into it by turning the frog into the prince via millions of small accidental changes over millions of hypothetical years.

Its a cute story but is it even possible?
If its possible, why does the fossil evidence apparently conspire to cover up the tracks of gradualism? Sometimes I really really think that the ToE is what you want to believe rather than what the evidence forces you to accept.  


I dishonestly oversimplified the story to make it sound a bit stupid and therefore less believable, to my own simple brain and hopefull to make PorkChop think that it's a bit of a stupid story too. Did it work PorkChop? Do you believe my version of the ToE?"


I dunno, JimIrvine. Porkchop is certainly more subtle than me in his style of questioning, but I get the distinct impression that his reservations about your belief system are pretty obvious even given his relative politeness.

As for you Wisp, your radical anti-Christian sentiments are showing as usual. Perhaps that's why I have to give the "Youdebate anti-Christian evangelist" award of the year to you.
Congratulations.

I wonder if you have ever considered the root of your love of the ToE?

(Edited by Lester10 2/14/2010 at 08:08 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: 04:13 AM on February 15, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nope, what he is doing is misrepresenting what the ToE say about the evolution of Whales and mocking that. As usual for Lester, it is utterly dishonest.


Nope not dishonest -just trying to make you take a good look at what you believe. You can try to make it look scientific and respectable but even your imagination can't honestly fill in the intermediates properly. It's all just imagination based on plausible imaginary intermediates that are the exception rather than the rule in the fossil record. You have to want to believe it.



-------
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: 04:39 AM on February 17, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:23 PM on February 14, 2010 :
Well... Giving birth should settle it...

I mean, why would the original superotter give birth both, on land and in water?

But they have already claimed that some intelligent designer had foresight and gave some organisms tools to evolve... i mean, adapt afterwards (they did with the nylonase). They could say the same dumb thing about the otter.


One of the more impressive (or unimpressive depending on what we talk about, he thought relativity required 5 dimensions and worked best in 7 or 9) creos that I've talked to explained that the ability to adapt is caused by the expression of genes turning on and off as seen through the field of epigenetics. A very clever thing to say, especially for a creo. So this otter has the ability to turn on and off this gene as to whether it is in the water or on land, so the supper otter didn't have to be perfect for both environments. It's genius!

(Edited by Fencer27 2/17/2010 at 04:59 AM).


-------
"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: 04:58 AM on February 17, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:39 AM on February 17, 2010 :
Nope, what he is doing is misrepresenting what the ToE say about the evolution of Whales and mocking that. As usual for Lester, it is utterly dishonest.


Nope not dishonest -just trying to make you take a good look at what you believe. You can try to make it look scientific and respectable but even your imagination can't honestly fill in the intermediates properly. It's all just imagination based on plausible imaginary intermediates that are the exception rather than the rule in the fossil record. You have to want to believe it.


Yes Lester, dishonest.  You deliberately misrepresent what the ToE say in order to make peurile attempts at ridicule (monumentally failing in the process). I could accept this, and may even have some respect for you if you did this from a position of knowledge. by that I mean, If i actually believed that you understood what the ToE says about the evolution of the whale, disagreed with it and decided to parody the ToE on this subject. but I do not believe that this 'parody' came from an understanding of the ToE. In fact, I believe that it came from a misunerstanding of the ToE. I am happy to be proven wrong however. Post for us, you actual non-parody version of your understanding of the ToE wrt whale evolution. Show us that your parody was from a position of knowledge, not ignorance. i will happily apologise to you if you can do that. Failure to do it will prove me right about you (again)

(Edited by JimIrvine 2/17/2010 at 05:13 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: 05:12 AM on February 17, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Post for us, you actual non-parody version of your understanding of the ToE wrt whale evolution.


In reality JimIrvine, there is no non-parody version of this wondrous transition - even when evolutionists discuss it it sounds like total invention to me. I know that the bulk of the evidence available to us does not support Darwinian evolution (except in the way of wishful thinking) and the only way you can ever make up a story of the land mammal turning into a whale is if you accept naturalism as fact. I don't accept it because of the evidence for design.

Your philosophy leads you to accept made-up stories from minimal fossilized bones as factual representations of what happened when you have no idea whether macro-evolution is in fact possible genetically.

Wishing it were true and knowing that it is true are two entirely different things.

You might just as well ask me to write down the true story of Little Red Riding Hood to show you that I understand that it really happened.

Sorry I can't do that.  


-------
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: 11:17 AM on February 17, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:39 AM on February 17, 2010 :
Nope, what he is doing is misrepresenting what the ToE say about the evolution of Whales and mocking that. As usual for Lester, it is utterly dishonest.


Nope not dishonest -just trying to make you take a good look at what you believe.


Except that the silly caricatures you present are, in fact, NOT what we 'believe.'


YOU, on the other hand, DO believe that an anthropomorphic deity blew on dirt and a fully formed human male popped out.

You DO believe that a bottleneck of 4 breeding pairs of humans produced the 6 billion humans of today's diversity and variation in less than 4,500 years.

You DO believe that leprosy can be cured by sacrificing pigeons over runing water.

You DO believe that eventhough dinosaurs lived with humans, they only rated 2 vague mentions in the bible (while horses, for example, are mentioned something like 67 times).

Do you not?



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:18 AM on February 17, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 5:17 PM on February 17, 2010 :
Post for us, you actual non-parody version of your understanding of the ToE wrt whale evolution.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Weasel and dodge, duck and weave. Upshot...
Sorry I can't do that.  


So basically Lester, the bottom line is that you do not understand Evolution. You argue against it from a position of ignorance. (This is not news to any of us here, I'm just spelling it out, that's all). You are a charlatan Lester. A liar, dishonest to the core. An embarrasment to all who call themselves christian. I truly hope that one day you will wake up to see just how low you have sunk in the defence of your cult.



-------
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: 11:36 AM on February 17, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:17 AM on February 17, 2010 :
Post for us, you actual non-parody version of your understanding of the ToE wrt whale evolution.


In reality JimIrvine, there is no non-parody version of this wondrous transition - even when evolutionists discuss it it sounds like total invention to me. I know that the bulk of the evidence available to us does not support Darwinian evolution (except in the way of wishful thinking)




No you don't.

You rely on lay-targetted books written by frauds and charlatans and story tellers.

YOU know next to nothing about ANY of the evidence.

You claim a background in anatomy yet ran off when I asked you to discuss Archaeopteryx anatomy.

You claim a background in genetics yet when I start a thread for you to explain how genetics is a [problem for evolution you want to talk about whale evolution as depicted in museum displays.

You are an empty suit, and I might add, unless you can demonstrate otherwise, an empty head.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:37 AM on February 17, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 6:03 PM on February 14, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 9:33 PM on February 12, 2010 :
But how does a mammal living his life on land start taking to the water?


We are watching it happen right now with the Sea Otter.


Sea Otter

Do you believe that Sea Otters exist?


I believe sea otters exist, that is a matter of faith? Anyhow, Are we really watching a sea otter become Whale-like creature or are we seeing an animal that resembles a seal -a variety within its kind?





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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 9:03 PM on February 17, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:03 PM on February 17, 2010 :
I believe sea otters exist, that is a matter of faith? Anyhow, Are we really watching a sea otter become Whale-like creature or are we seeing an animal that resembles a seal -a variety within its kind?


Are you saying that a Sea Otter is in the Seal kind?



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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:09 PM on February 17, 2010 | IP
firechild

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 1:09 PM on February 18, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 9:03 PM on February 17, 2010 :
I believe sea otters exist, that is a matter of faith? Anyhow, Are we really watching a sea otter become Whale-like creature or are we seeing an animal that resembles a seal -a variety within its kind?


Are you saying that a Sea Otter is in the Seal kind?



I think we've established that a "kind" is a group of organisms as small or as large as is needed to defend the creation position in any argument. God made it that way so that his people were always right.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 9:47 PM on February 17, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Except that the silly caricatures you present are, in fact, NOT what we 'believe.'


YOU, on the other hand, DO believe that an anthropomorphic deity blew on dirt and a fully formed human male popped out.


Yes but what you DO believe is that everything came from nothing and nowhere countable billions of years ago. This everything that exploded from nothing then proceeded to organize itself inexplicably into everything that exists today.

That's the 'scientific' version, I know. But I just have to go with the intelligent organizer, the 'stupid, unscientific' version of the origins story. Somehow I just see purpose and plan everywhere and my randomly evolved neuronal connections just can't conquer that feeling that you are wrong.

You DO believe that eventhough dinosaurs lived with humans, they only rated 2 vague mentions in the bible


And your point is...?
Do you know how many animals didn't even get one mention - but they exist.

The Bible is not a National Geographic special edition on every animal that existed from the beginning. Maybe the dinosaurs got mentioned because they were the biggest of God's creatures...Hmmm? What do you think?

YOU know next to nothing about ANY of the evidence.


Wrong Derwood - I know too much about the evidence and that's why I can't believe in evolution. The people that do believe it have generally only heard the one-sided evidence offering of the philisophical naturalist so they are in no position to assess the situation.

People like you are there to push your religion in the absence of reasonable evidence and fully aware of its shortfalls - I'm so happy I'm not you. I'd have a lot to answer for.





-------
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: 12:08 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester

Derwood

You DO believe that eventhough dinosaurs lived with humans, they only rated 2 vague mentions in the bible


And your point is...?
Do you know how many animals didn't even get one mention - but they exist.

The Bible is not a National Geographic special edition on every animal that existed from the beginning. Maybe the dinosaurs got mentioned because they were the biggest of God's creatures...Hmmm? What do you think?


Easily explained Lester.  The writers of the Bible had very limited knowledge of what animals existed in the world.  The word 'behemoth' mentioned in the Bible could have been referring to a mythical creature, or to perhaps hippos, elephants, water buffalo, etc.  

The portrayal of the Creationist Museum in Kentucky that humans and dinosaurs co-existed is not only hilarious, but extremely embarrassing.  It serves only to misinform, confuse, and lie to all the school children that visit the place.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:05 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:08 PM on February 18, 2010 :
Except that the silly caricatures you present are, in fact, NOT what we 'believe.'


YOU, on the other hand, DO believe that an anthropomorphic deity blew on dirt and a fully formed human male popped out.


Yes but what you DO believe is that everything came from nothing and nowhere countable billions of years ago. This everything that exploded from nothing then proceeded to organize itself inexplicably into everything that exists today.


I am actually a fence-stter with regard to the origin of the universe.  Evolution deals with life once it is already here, how it got here is an interesting but, frankly, irrelevant diversion.

Somehow I just see purpose and plan everywhere and my randomly evolved neuronal connections just can't conquer that feeling that you are wrong.


I know - it is called invincible ignorance.

You DO believe that eventhough dinosaurs lived with humans, they only rated 2 vague mentions in the bible


And your point is...?


Umm.. Pretty obvious, I would think.

Or do you not think that something like this:



might have garnered more than a passing vague mention?

Do you know how many animals didn't even get one mention - but they exist.


Probably lots - but, as is obvios, how many of them stood 20 feet tall and had dagger-like teeth?


The Bible is not a National Geographic special edition on every animal that existed from the beginning. Maybe the dinosaurs got mentioned because they were the biggest of God's creatures...Hmmm? What do you think?


But they DIDN'T get mentioned, that is the point.

The biggest of gods creatures, it seems to me, wouldn't have been able to hide under a lotus leaf, do you think?


YOU know next to nothing about ANY of the evidence.


Wrong Derwood - I know too much about the evidence and that's why I can't believe in evolution.


Then why are you demonstrable incapable of actually discussing any of it?

If you know so much, why do you defer to missives found in lay-targetted books that are demonstrably incorrect?

If YOU know all about the evidence, why do you refer to museum displays?


The people that do believe it have generally only heard the one-sided evidence offering of the philisophical naturalist so they are in no position to assess the situation.


Well then TELL US ALL about the other-sided evidence that you are so familiar with!

I've read Wells' book, Sarfati's book, ReMine's book, Denton's book, Johnson's book, Behe's book, Wysong's book.  I've read dozens of creationist articles and essays.  I own a half dozen creation 'research' journals.

What else am I supposed to look at?

I must say, in NONE of the boosk I read did I actually see any evidence presented IN FAVOR of YECism or IDism.  EVERY book produced the same lame 'arguments'  against evolution, most of which are false, distorted, overblown, irrelevent, etc., there were claims that 'evolution can't explain this', but no indication that the alternative COULD.

So what am I supposed to look at, and why are you so reluctant to tell us all about your YEC facts?

People like you are there to push your religion in the absence of reasonable evidence and fully aware of its shortfalls - I'm so happy I'm not you. I'd have a lot to answer for.


Your projection grows tiresome.

Put up or shut up.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:40 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Quote from Lester10 at 03:40 AM on October 11, 2009 :

skeleton almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaur


Extremely debatable comment –far from convincing.


Well, let's debate it.  You claimed anatomical knowledge, I believe.  Let's have at it.



jaw with teeth


Do you have jaws with teeth? If so, does that mean that you are a dinosaur or just related to them OR could it be part of your design because you also need to eat?

No humans - indeed, no mammals, are contemporaneous.

Other ancient birds had teeth.


Such as?
The teeth of meat eating dinosaurs are different to the teeth of archaeopteryx.

So you admit that dinosaurs ate meat?

Similarities are circumstantial and inconclusive.

Not when taken in their proper context (i.e., their temporal relationship).

long bony tail


Meat eating dinosaurs had tails 4-5 feet long covered with scales; Archae had a tail 4-5 inches long and covered with feathers. Is that close enough for you?

Birds do not have bony tails.


If ostriches have long necks, does that make them closely related to giraffes? Or is it just a unique design feature of that animal?

When the creationist starts hurling silly rhetoric like this, you know they're out of their depth.


claws


So do bats have claws on their wings, so did pterosaurs have claws on their wings, so do ostriches, hoatzins and touracos have claws on their wings.

Bats are mammals.  

feathers (asymetrical feathers, at that)  - there is still debate whether the creature could actually fly.


All other birds with assymetrical feathers can fly. Most likely Archeopteryx could fly well. The only thing that would stop it from flying well is the evolutionist’s belief that it was ancient and thus closer to something non-flying. That’s not objective.


What is objective is the fact that Archaeopteryx had a keel-less sternum, meaning that it could not have possessed flight muscles of sufficient size (and therefore strength) to allow flight.

Even ostriches, which do not fly, have a broad, keeled sternum:



And even pigeons have a pronounced keel:




Surely an anatomist like you knows where the sternum is, right?  And the significance of the size of points of muscle attachment?

The question to ask ourselves is does Archie provide clues as to how scales evolved into feathers or legs into wings?
No.


Modern birds still have scales (look at their legs).  As for limbs to wings, yes, since Archie's wings are 'half-way' from limbs to true wings.  Many dinosaurs appear to have had feathers, so feather evolution is not a question that Archie must answer.
Further, I see the use of the feather 'problem' as merely a tool YECs use to dodge the facts.  That we do not have the answer to one question does not logically mean that we should forget the answers provided for dozens of other questions.  If that were so, we should, logically, dismiss the bible since there are a number of 'unanswered questions' about the events described therein.  My bet is that the bible doesn't have to live up to the same critera you demand of other 'beliefs'.


Or is it more likely a mosaic of complete traits?
Yes.

What are the intermediates, do you think, of the scale to feather transition?  What is a 'complete' trait?
Are the limbs of a dwarf not 'complete'?

When we find wings on fossils, we find completely developed, fully functional wings.

How do you know they were 'fully functional'?
Have you done analyses on reconstructed Archie wings?  How did Archie sustain flight with such puny pecs?



-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:45 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood

Lester

The Bible is not a National Geographic special edition on every animal that existed from the beginning. Maybe the dinosaurs got mentioned because they were the biggest of God's creatures...Hmmm? What do you think?


But they DIDN'T get mentioned, that is the point.


Yes, the Bible mentions some Behemoth eating grass.  I would think something like a T-Rex would get MUCH more attention - as they  would be running around gobbling up people like M&M's.  That would make headline news, don't you think?

But no mention in the Bible os such creatures.  I wonder why?  

Dinosaurs and humans co-existing - I wonder why the fossil record doesn't support this Creationist notion?

 
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:01 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 9:09 PM on February 17, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 9:03 PM on February 17, 2010 :
I believe sea otters exist, that is a matter of faith? Anyhow, Are we really watching a sea otter become Whale-like creature or are we seeing an animal that resembles a seal -a variety within its kind?


Are you saying that a Sea Otter is in the Seal kind?




Perhaps, but is a sea otter screaming "Whale evolution" to you?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:53 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:53 PM on February 18, 2010 :
Perhaps, but is a sea otter screaming "Whale evolution" to you?


You asked:

Quote from porkchop at 9:33 PM on February 12, 2010 :
But how does a mammal living his life on land start taking to the water?


A sea otter is well along the process of taking to the water.  Better adapted than seals in that it can give birth in water.

It is taking to the water to follow it's food supply and escape predation on land.  Isn't that a good reason?


-------
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: 7:04 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It may be an ok reason, but not a deal maker. There are plenty of animals that like both land and sea, would you say they're are in the process of becoming full time sea creatures?


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:45 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:45 PM on February 18, 2010 :
It may be an ok reason, but not a deal maker. There are plenty of animals that like both land and sea, would you say they're are in the process of becoming full time sea creatures?


Name some.

What happens in the future will be a result of the evolutionary process, it is not automatically predictable.



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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:37 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
Apoapsis
porkchop
But how does a mammal living his life on land start taking to the water?
We are watching it happen right now with the Sea Otter.

Sea Otter

Do you believe that Sea Otters exist?
I believe sea otters exist, that is a matter of faith?
For you people lots of things are.

In another forum i'm trying to convince a creationist that making water is not impossible, as his faith tells him (he thinks only God can do it).

And you people feel quite free from facts, so oftentimes we must ask you if you accept a certain fact before moving on.

Flat earthers are creationists too. So if you meet a creationist it shouldn't be insulting if you ask them if they believe the Earth moves around the Sun, or if sea otters exist.
Anyhow, Are we really watching a sea otter become Whale-like creature or are we seeing an animal that resembles a seal -a variety within its kind?
Oh, my goodness...

When are you people going to set things straight for kinds? So you stop embarrassing yourselves...

The thing is that, the moment you define it and map all the kinds you have faith in, you'll be just as embarrassed at the results.

You may ignore this fact, but your handlers know it.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:58 PM on February 18, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp

In another forum i'm trying to convince a creationist that making water is not impossible, as his faith tells him (he thinks only God can do it).


Wisp, is he serious?  Making water is impossible?  Tell him about fuel cells.  Any kid with a simple home chemistry set and batteries can produce water.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:26 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
derwood
Except that the silly caricatures you present are, in fact, NOT what we 'believe.'


YOU, on the other hand, DO believe that an anthropomorphic deity blew on dirt and a fully formed human male popped out.


Yes but what you DO believe is that everything came from nothing
Argumental fallacy: Red herring.

Not only that's false: it's irrelevant.

For you to believe that we were formed by a tribal deity blowing on dirt IS relevant, on the other hand.
This everything that exploded from nothing then proceeded to organize itself inexplicably into everything that exists today.
This forum is about Creationism VS Evolution. Can you deal with it?
That's the 'scientific' version, I know. But I just have to go with the intelligent organizer, the 'stupid, unscientific' version of the origins story.
Nah. Just one of many. Nothing special about it. I bet there are some more stupid versions around, somewhere. Just keep looking.
Somehow I just see purpose and plan everywhere and my randomly evolved neuronal connections just can't conquer that feeling that you are wrong.
Randomly evolved?

Do you still think Evolution is about randomness, or you're just being dishonest?

In any case the fallibility of our brains is patent even from YOUR perspective.

What's your perspective? That our intelligently designed brains (that even perform better than yours in IQ tests) get deluded and start believing things that Yahweh didn't intend for us to believe. Right?

You DO believe that eventhough dinosaurs lived with humans, they only rated 2 vague mentions in the bible
And your point is...?


Do you or do you not realize that animals only found in lower strata tend not to be mentioned in the Bible?

That coincidentally every animal mentioned in the Bible had the ability to stay afloat during the flood?
Do you know how many animals didn't even get one mention - but they exist.
But those who DO get mentioned are consistently found in the highest strata (and i think all of them are alive today).

Go ahead. Say Yahweh knew they would survive because he gave them better buoyancy, and that's the reason they deserved to be mentioned.

The Bible is not a National Geographic special edition on every animal that existed from the beginning. Maybe the dinosaurs got mentioned because they were the biggest of God's creatures...Hmmm? What do you think?
They DIDN'T get mentioned. That's the thing.

We find fossils like this:

1
2
3
4
5
6... ↓

You say they all lived like this:
5 2 1 6 3 4 X (X = unicorns and giants and unclear stuff)

The question is why the creatures who get mentioned all belong to either 1 (found in the highest strata) or X (Error 404: not found).

Get it now?

Of course you don't.

YOU know next to nothing about ANY of the evidence.
Wrong Derwood - I know too much about the evidence and that's why I can't believe in evolution.
Easier said than shown.

You don't even know what phenotype means, what homology is, or what the ToE actually says. Not even with all the help from your pneumonics.

The people that do believe it have generally only heard the one-sided evidence offering of the philisophical naturalist so they are in no position to assess the situation.
The guys who wrote the Bible were in a similar situation. They have only heard the one-sided evidence offering of the... Well, themselves.

People like you are there to push your religion in the absence of reasonable evidence and fully aware of its shortfalls
Blah blah blah blah blah.
I'm so happy I'm not you.
I'd have a lot to answer for.
Exactly. And he does answer.

And Lester answers no questions. Lester is free as a bird. He can make all the little orphan claims he wants.

Why don't you start answering for a change?

Why do only animals from 1 or X get mentioned in the Bible?

I didn't even check, but this is a safe prediction based on my knowledge on the ToE.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:40 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Nope, what he is doing is misrepresenting what the ToE say about the evolution of Whales and mocking that. As usual for Lester, it is utterly dishonest.
Nope not dishonest
So you say.

You depict something nobody believes in and mock it as if it affected what we actually accept to be facts.
-just trying to make you take a good look at what you believe.
By depicting something nobody believes in?

You're either dishonest or dumb (or both).
You can try to make it look scientific and respectable
"It" what? Your caricature? Nobody can. And that doesn't matter.
but even your imagination can't honestly fill in the intermediates properly.
You're projecting here.

I can imagine lots of things in the intermediates (some more likely than others).

You, on the other hand, have shown to be unable to do the same for your beliefs.

Like the ark myth, for instance.
You don't even know what "kinds" are.

It's all just imagination based on plausible imaginary intermediates that are the exception rather than the rule in the fossil record.
You say it as if it was relevant.

We just keep finding fossils, and they always fit. They always have, and they always will. Animals that don't fit (like giants, unicorns, angels, etc) will never be found. Ever.

We know this. We can make predictions. You have nothing.

You have to want to believe it.
We KNOW everything will always fit.

You'll say it's forced. Suit yourself. Your ignorant appreciation doesn't matter.

There are vastly more virtual creatures that could have been created by your god which COULDN'T fit in the phylogenetic tree of life (no matter how forcefully) than those who do. Yet we can only find those who do. Always have, always will.

You lose, Lester.
Always have, always will.



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:53 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 ]

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