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:

orion
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?
Unfortunately, yes.
Making water is impossible?  Tell him about fuel cells.  Any kid with a simple home chemistry set and batteries can produce water.
Exactly what i told him.
He told me to go to my grandmother with that fairy tale.


I showed him videos.

Nothing can compete against faith. He laughs at me because i'll hever reach his wisdom (who only God can give).

He also believes that the first Newtonian law is crap, and that he disproved it by speaking about marbles and baseball.

He said he'd demonstrate God's existence if i answered some questions first. He was bluffing. He didn't think i could answer easily.

He asked: "If scientists know the chemical formula of the water (h2o, you know?), then how come they can't make any? And who or what keeps planets in motion so that they don't stop, go into entropy and start colliding?"

I showed him the first law... I even underlined the "if it's not altered from outside"... But he still thought he had debunked Newton by mentioning a curve ball stopping at a baseball glove.

I told him there is no air or baseball globes catching planets, but he wasn't convinced.

He said "Don't you know perpetual motion is impossible, silly?". Of course, he doesn't know the first thing about thermodynamics, but that doesn't prevent him from speaking his god-induced wisdom.


(Edited by wisp 2/19/2010 at 01:09 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: 01:05 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's frightening to contemplate how scientifically illiterate many people are.

He's right and Newton's wrong?  Wow!  That would make him just about the most intelligent person who ever lived, in that case.

You better not debate him anymore Wisp - you'll lose -- for sure.  

LOL  :0)
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:19 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He also believes that sugar is toxic and honey is perfectly safe (even after i told him sugars are pretty similar, and i told him about the toxines, polen, infant botulism, etc).

His god given wisdom also tells him it's made from polen.


Fencer
wisp
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)
But... General Relativity does require 5 dimensions... The ordinary interpretation of it does. Does it not?
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!
WOAH!!!

I want more creos like that here!

He's probably just as dishonest, but at least he has some brains attached to that unmovable faith!

Epigenetics could account for the variations since the ark!
Well, no, not really, but it's still much better than every explanation i've read from them so far!

Did he come up with it on his own?



-------
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: 01:29 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood
I am actually a fence-stter with regard to the origin of the universe.  


Well what’s the point of being a fence sitter there? You’re already in the incredible claims department, why not go all the way and insist that everything made itself all the way through?
Do you mean to tell me you might allow for intelligence as the causation of the origin of the universe? Or is it just that you know that the evidence is just so lacking for origins from nothing and nowhere that you just can’t go there?

If you might allow for more than just naturalism to have played a part in the origin of the universe and first life, then isn’t it conceivable that there is more than just mutation and natural selection that is responsible for variation in nature?

Evolution deals with life once it is already here, how it got here is an interesting but, frankly, irrelevant diversion.


And I think it’s an evolutionist’s diversion because he dares not go there knowing how extraordinarily complex even the simplest life is. A cop out, I ‘d call it.
Don’t you realize that you have to have a naturalistic foundation to build on to start and complete your story? You can’t base it on no beginning –it’s not coherent as a theory

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.


Or maybe ‘evidence of design’? There is ignorance in your presuppositions of everything from nothing.

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?

Precisely why they were mentioned as opposed to so many that were not.
But they DIDN'T get mentioned, that is the point.

But they did –you contradict yourself.
Then why are you demonstrable incapable of actually discussing any of it?

Whatever I mention gets blown away with disdain. You have made up your mind and you don’t care about any of the evidence to the contrary. You do doubtless need your salary cheque, and it doesn’t help to be a dissenter. But luckily you LIKE your religion anyway and that’s fine, you have a right to it BUT I really think you should give kids a chance to think critically by giving them some of the evidence against your naturalistic religious views.
If YOU know all about the evidence, why do you refer to museum displays?


What exactly is wrong with a little solid evidence from natural history museum displays?

You wouldn’t speak as if they were irrelevant if they had a few convincing transitional fossils in them - but you know you really have to search far and wide to find any of those plausible intermediate forms.

Gradualism is demonstrably false as is clearly shown by fossil displays and the entire fossil record. They should be full of gradual evolution but they’re not. The evidence points to sudden creation as demonstrated by features such as the Cambrian explosion - even your evolutionist orientated displays can’t show anything to the contrary.

So try not to repeatedly say that I won’t discuss or that I run away from the evidence. Rather try to explain to me why the evidence is contrary to your claims.

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


How about we start with the fossil evidence for sudden creation? The Cambrian explosion, the fish explosion, the dinosaur explosion and every other full blown clear cut kind of creature that appears with no plausible precursors in the fossil record.
Where is your slow gradual mutation and natural selection evidence?
Why make up a story that doesn’t fit the evidence when we already have one that does?

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


You sound like you must be a Ken Miller friend here. He loves to argue that ID is only a negative argument against evolution but that is an outright misrepresentation which makes him sound like he never listens or as if he conveniently ignores anything that goes against what he prefers to believe.

Behe has said at the Dover trial that ‘we recognize design by the purposeful arrangement of parts.’
Everybody recognizes design. Scientific literature discussing living organisms is full of design terminology. The bizarre thing though is that even though they recognize design, they insist that it is merely the ‘appearance of design’, not design itself. How can they possibly KNOW that, except via their exclusive philosophy of naturalism which does not allow for a designer?

PARTS ARRANGED TO SERVE A PURPOSE is EVIDENCE OF DESIGN – positive evidence for design, not negative evidence against evolution.

EVERY book produced the same lame 'arguments'  against evolution, most of which are false, distorted, overblown, irrelevent, etc.,


It seems to me that your claim of lame arguments against evolution only, is false, distorted, overblown and irrelevant.

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


Open your eyes, your religion has made you blind.





-------
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: 05:42 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 01:29 AM on February 19, 2010 :
But... General Relativity does require 5 dimensions... The ordinary interpretation of it does. Does it not?


While I have yet to take the relativity course, I always thought relativity had 4 dimensions; 3 spacial (length, height, depth) and then time as the fourth, which several people much more knowledgeable than me also said. Once you go past 4 dimensions I see it as in the realm of quantum mechanics; string theory and M-theory etc. If there is a fifth dimension to relativity I have yet to encounter it in my 2 years of taking astronomy courses.

WOAH!!!

I want more creos like that here!

He's probably just as dishonest, but at least he has some brains attached to that unmovable faith!


I'm not sure how dishonest he is, but he has brought up interesting points before.

Epigenetics could account for the variations since the ark!
Well, no, not really, but it's still much better than every explanation i've read from them so far!

Did he come up with it on his own?



I thought it was quite inventive as well. As far as I know he came up with it on his own. I'd invite him here but I'm not sure how; he was banned from that forum (don't know why), but I'll try and contact him via e-mail and see what happens. Maybe we'll get lucky.


-------
"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: 06:41 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:42 AM on February 19, 2010 :
Derwood
I am actually a fence-stter with regard to the origin of the universe.  


Well what’s the point of being a fence sitter there? You’re already in the incredible claims department, why not go all the way and insist that everything made itself all the way through?

Incredible claims?  Oh, right - I am the one that claims a superbeing blew on dirt and Adam popped out, right.

But seriously - I accept that the big bang and abiogenesis may have happened, but it does not concern my true interest.  I am an evolutionary biologist, so how life got here is really irrelevant.

If you might allow for more than just naturalism to have played a part in the origin of the universe and first life, then isn’t it conceivable that there is more than just mutation and natural selection that is responsible for variation in nature?

Unlike you, I am actually open to all sorts of possibilities. The problem is, there is evidence for evolution.  Despite being involved in these debates for more than 15 years, reading about a dozen YEC and ID book, hundreds of essays and articles , etc., I have yet to see any actual supporitn gevidence FOR YEC or ID.  All I ever see are lame attacks on evolution.

Further, considering the depictions of deities in hioly books, I find the notion that one of them had a role in the creation of anything to be completley ridiculous.  The deities descibed in the holy books of the world are simple minded uincompetent thugs.

Evolution deals with life once it is already here, how it got here is an interesting but, frankly, irrelevant diversion.


And I think it’s an evolutionist’s diversion because he dares not go there knowing how extraordinarily complex even the simplest life is. A cop out, I ‘d call it.


Of course you do - people like youlove to conflate abiogenesis and evolution.  It makes it easier for you to argue against evolution because then you don't have to actually deal with the evidence.
Of course, we learn things over time.  We know much, much more today than we did did 25 years ago, much less 2000 years ago, and your pontifications about 'complex first life' and all this are just the last gasps of a belief system that not too long ago insisted that ALL living creatures were represented on the ark and that no evolution at all - not even microevolution - was possible.  How much will YECs have capitulated about in the next 25 years?

Don’t you realize that you have to have a naturalistic foundation to build on to start and complete your story? You can’t base it on no beginning –it’s not coherent as a theory

I know that people with no evidence on their side frequently resort to these sorts of lame red herring arguments, but it is of no concern to me.
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.


Or maybe ‘evidence of design’? There is ignorance in your presuppositions of everything from nothing.


Well then correct my ignorance and - for the first time - PRESENT some of this evidence you claim exists that we don't know about.

But I have to foreward you - claims that there are problems with radiometric dating are not evidence that the earth is 6000 years old.

A couple of museum displays that seem to the uninformed to be at odds with each other is not evidence that whales were created by Jesus...

etc.


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?

Precisely why they were mentioned as opposed to so many that were not.

They were?

Show me the many passages in which 20 feet tall creatures with dagger-like teeth were mentioned.

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

But they did –you contradict yourself.


A more rational reading says they didn't.  Most believe that the creature frolicking in the river and hiding under lotus leaves was a hippo.

So I do not accept that what we call dinosaurs were mentioned at all.
It takes some rather imaginative mental gymnastics to 'interpret' those 2 passages as proving that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

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

Whatever I mention gets blown away with disdain.

You mean my refutations?

So you really DO think that claiming problems with radiometirc dating and inconsistent museum displays and the like are evidence FOR IDC???

You cannot be serious...


You have made up your mind and you don’t care about any of the evidence to the contrary.


I have drawn conclusions from the real evidence, yes.  The nonsense you have presented is little more than rumors, misrepresentations, misinterpretations, and plain old ignorance.
You relyon sources that are demonstrably ignorant and/or dishonest about the things they write.

And even if, solely for the sake of argument, allow that all of the 'evidence' you have presented is true and correct - at absolute best, all it means is that some aspects of evolution are not completely understood.

How you can claim that nitpicks of evolution is evidence FOR IDC that we just can't understand is unfathomable.

Is the ocnverse also true - that evidence against a literal bible disproves creation?

Of course not - you folks are immune to that sort of thing...

You do doubtless need your salary cheque, and it doesn’t help to be a dissenter.


And when all else fails, blame the Evil Atheist Conspiracy.

You people are pathetic.


But luckily you LIKE your religion anyway and that’s fine, you have a right to it BUT I really think you should give kids a chance to think critically by giving them some of the evidence against your naturalistic religious views.


PRESENT SOME.

Its actuallypretty funny - we have a rather large conservative religious population at my school, and MANY of them tell us how embarrassed they are at how they believed the stuff they were told in their churches and religous private schools.

When you actually DO tell them 'the other side', many of them are mad that their religious and social 'leaders' lied to them.


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


What exactly is wrong with a little solid evidence from natural history museum displays?


LOL!

What is wrong is that your source DIDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT THE DISPLAYS WERE FINE, just showing different starting points, and YOU, the DOCTOATE in science holding YEC expert, DIDN'T EITHER.

This was all explained to you by several of us, yet here you are making the same claims.

Invincible ignorance.


You wouldn’t speak as if they were irrelevant if they had a few convincing transitional fossils in them - but you know you really have to search far and wide to find any of those plausible intermediate forms.


They are irrelevant in terms of how you are using them.  
Why do you think that ALL fossils should be readily found?

If, as YOU believe, the 'flood' happened 4,500 years ago, why can't we see Noah's bones?
Why does your 'skepticism' only aplly in one direction?


Gradualism is demonstrably false as is clearly shown by fossil displays and the entire fossil record.

Well then YEC is clearly false as I have yet to see the ark of the covenant or Noah's remains.

They should be full of gradual evolution


WHY???

What does 'gradualism' mean to you?

Is this more of your pro-YEC evidence?

Hope not - because none of this is evidence SUPPORTIVE of YEC.


but they’re not. The evidence points to sudden creation as demonstrated by features such as the Cambrian explosion -


Yeah, that 50 MILLION year 'explosion' is big trouble or us...
Weird that there are no human remains in those strata.  Or any other non-marine animals, for that matter.  Shouldn't there be some in there?

even your evolutionist orientated displays can’t show anything to the contrary.

Still on museum displays are we?

Shall we revisit your source's errors and your inability to identify them as such with regard to seals and whales again?

So try not to repeatedly say that I won’t discuss or that I run away from the evidence.


You WON'T.

I re-posted my questions about bird anatomy - which yuo claim a background in - and I'll bet you still can't discuss it.

NONE of what you have written is evidence FOR IDC.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

(Edited by derwood 2/19/2010 at 10:07 AM).


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 08:51 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 05:42 AM on  Rather try to explain to me why the evidence is contrary to your claims.

Since it isn't, I don't have to.

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


How about we start with the fossil evidence for sudden creation?

Sure - do tell us how it is that a 6-day creation produces a progression in thefossil record.

Where can we find the layer in which all fossils are all mixed up as would have occurred during your flood?

The Cambrian explosion,

50+ million years...


the fish explosion, the dinosaur explosion

So many multi-million year 'explosions'...  

and every other full blown clear cut kind of creature that appears with no plausible precursors in the fossil record.

None whatsoever... Yup...
The old argument from no evidence.

So, are all these 'explosions' in contemporaneous strata, as they must be for YECism to be true?


Where is your slow gradual mutation and natural selection evidence?


Where is your evidence that evolution always proceeds slow and gradual?

Where are the living diosaurs, giant ground sloths, saber toothed cats, etc., who all were on the ark according to your holy book?

Why did they all die out and leave no subkinds?

Why make up a story that doesn’t fit the evidence when we already have one that does?

I know YECism does not fit the evidence, so why did youpeople make it up?

How is it that some buildings were apparently spared by your 'worldwide' flood, and how was it that this 'worldwide' flood went unnoticed byt the egyptians, chinese, mesoamerican indians, etc.?

Where is the actual geological evidence for a WORLD-WIDE flood?

I must say, in NONE of the books I read did I actually see any evidence presented IN FAVOR of YECism or IDism.  EVERY book produced the same lame 'arguments'  against evolution


You sound like you must be a Ken Miller friend here.


He's OK - but you come across as a Pye/Werner/Meyer worshipper.  And we all know how accurate their claims are.

But it is real simple - even if there were only 2 possibilities, YEC and evo - a lack of evidence for one does not 'prove' the other.   Evidence against one is not 'proof' of the other.


If I say the moon is green cheese and you claim it is blue cheese, if we look at the moon and see it it not green, does that mean it really is blue cheese?

He loves to argue that ID is only a negative argument against evolution but that is an outright misrepresentation which makes him sound like he never listens or as if he conveniently ignores anything that goes against what he prefers to believe.

Right, because I mean YECs and IDists only always present positive supporting evidence FOR their preferred position.

And you guys NEVER get caught misrepresenitng evolution, nosirree.  I mean, clearly evolution dictates that when a new species evolves, its ancestor must immediately die out, just like Werner implies.  And obviously evolution demands that a person is related to their grandfather, but NOT their great-grandfather.  How crazy is that?


Behe has said at the Dover trial that ‘we recognize design by the purposeful arrangement of parts.’


Oh, how quaint.

So let's see - we can use metaphorical language and idiosyncratic definitions to describe what we see and then claim that what we see is evidence for what we defiend!
Brilliant!

So, can I claim that evidence against design is the haphazard arrangement of parts and point to the recurrent laryngeal nerve or hind limb buds in dolphin embryoes as evidence?

Everybody recognizes design.

Oh, sure - we all recognize human activity.

Scientific literature discussing living organisms is full of design terminology.

Yeah - because metaphorical and analogical terminology is evidence!  


The bizarre thing though is that even though they recognize design, they insist that it is merely the ‘appearance of design’, not design itself.

Even more bizarre is the insistence that metaphorical language is evidence!


How can they possibly KNOW that, except via their exclusive philosophy of naturalism which does not allow for a designer?


And how can YECs possibly not know that claiming there are 'problems' with evolution means YECism is correct if not for their exclusive philosophy of supernaturalism and anti-rationalism?

[b]PARTS ARRANGED TO SERVE A PURPOSE is EVIDENCE OF DESIGN – positive evidence for design, not negative evidence against evolution.


ARGUMENT VIA ANALOGY, not empirical evidence.

Funny - I am quite nearly certain that if an evolutionist used analogies as evidence, UEC/IDCs would be all over us.

EVERY book produced the same lame 'arguments'  against evolution, most of which are false, distorted, overblown, irrelevent, etc.,


It seems to me that your claim of lame arguments against evolution only, is false, distorted, overblown and irrelevant.


Of course it seems that way to the philosophical supernaturalist who is belief-bound to unquestioningly accept Scripture as 100% true and to reject anythign that might coutner that belief.
Then again, you are the fellow claiming a doctorate in science who did not know what 'phenotype' meant.

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


Open your eyes, your religion has made you blind.


I'd say the same to you, but I know you've seen the evidence.

You just are belief-bound not to understand it.





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:25 AM on February 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Derwood
I am actually a fence-stter with regard to the origin of the universe.  
Well what’s the point of being a fence sitter there? You’re already in the incredible claims department, why not go all the way and insist that everything made itself all the way through?
Red herring.

That's not the issue, and you know it.

If you don't feel comfortable talking about it then drop it already.

Do you mean to tell me you might allow for intelligence as the causation of the origin of the universe?
It doesn't matter.

If it was demonstrated that Yahweh started everything, and made the first living cell, we would win, and you would lose.
Or is it just that you know that the evidence is just so lacking for origins from nothing and nowhere that you just can’t go there?
Or perhaps some of us don't want or need to go there in this forum.

If you might allow for more than just naturalism to have played a part in the origin of the universe and first life, then isn’t it conceivable that there is more than just mutation and natural selection that is responsible for variation in nature?
How would that help your position about everything being created just as we see it, or very similar, 6k years ago?

Evolution deals with life once it is already here, how it got here is an interesting but, frankly, irrelevant diversion.
And I think it’s an evolutionist’s diversion
Damn you're thick...
because he dares not go there knowing how extraordinarily complex even the simplest life is.
NOT going to a topic that's NOT related with the subject under discussion is NOT a diversion.

Gather some neurons, man...
A cop out, I ‘d call it.
Out of something unrelated?

Ok. No problem.

Don’t you realize that you have to have a naturalistic foundation to build on to start and complete your story?
Blah blah blah blah.

If you have something to show, show it. If not, go away.

You can’t base it on no beginning –it’s not coherent as a theory
The theory is based on facts. For all we know, a virtually infinite number of beginnings for the Universe could end up like this. Perhaps Yahweh did it.

That's completely irrelevant.

Stop diverting.

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.
Or maybe ‘evidence of design’?
What evidence for design? Anything other than the appearance of design, which was already explained by the ToE?

The ToE explains that and LOTS more.

Your hypothesis only explains the appearance of design, and does the poorest job possible: Saying there is a thing that makes the the things for which there is no known maker who doesn't need to have been made. Just because.
Oh, and he did it in a particular way for which there is zero evidence.

There is ignorance in your presuppositions of everything from nothing.
I don't think it's his presupposition. He said it wasn't.

It isn't mine either.

You lose, Lester. Not even your red herrings are successful.

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?
Precisely why they were mentioned as opposed to so many that were not.
But they DIDN'T get mentioned, that is the point.
But they did –you contradict yourself.
No, they did not.
No, he did not.

Are you crazy?

Seriously, Lester. You're delusional.

You make empty claims all the time, but now you're suggesting that he said the opposite of what he's been saying...

If you can't even read, you might as well stop posting.

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

Whatever I mention gets blown away with disdain.
But with good reason.

If you can refute it, please, do. Show us something you mentioned that had merit and was blown away with disdain.

You have made up your mind and you don’t care about any of the evidence to the contrary.
What evidence on the contrary?

Anything else from the appearance of design, that fits perfectly in the ToE?

You keep mentioning some evidence you supposedly have presented.

Stop making vague mentions. Start threads. Defend your claims.

Or go away.

You do doubtless need your salary cheque, and it doesn’t help to be a dissenter.
That's the old psychogenetic fallacy.

Don't you have something real to show us?

If not, you might just go away.

But luckily you LIKE your religion anyway and that’s fine, you have a right to it
More psychogenetic fallacy.
BUT I really think
No, you don't. You believe.
you should give kids a chance to think critically by giving them some of the evidence against your naturalistic religious views.
Why don't you start showing us, instead of vaguely mentioning it?

There are lots of aspects of Science that can be looked at critically. Why are you so interested in his kids knowing about this particular one?

Everything in Science can, should, must and is looked at critically.

My kids will know about the real debates. This isn't one, by the way.

Gradualism is demonstrably false
You have not demonstrated it.
I think you haven't even defined "gradualism".

Start a thread. Show us that the ToE really predicts this "gradualism" thing you talk about, and demonstrate how false it is.

Don't just say it's "demonstrably false". SHOW US!

Or go away.

as is clearly shown by fossil displays and the entire fossil record.
The ToE doesn't make predictions about exactly what, when or how we'll find things. It pretty much predicts what we WON'T find: We won't find anything that doesn't fit.

And nothing that didn't fit was ever found. And my safe bet is that nothing ever will.

If you don't show us how the ToE predicts this "gradualism" in the fossil record, you're full of nothing.

I can tell you that Yahweh's white beard is demonstrably false.

Would you consider it a valid attack on YEC?

They should be full of gradual evolution but they’re not.
Why?

I can say it should be full of Yahweh's white beard hairs if YEC was true.

The evidence points to sudden creation as demonstrated by features such as the Cambrian explosion
Why?

It lasted for several millionsof years, which show that you're wrong.

We have precambrian fossils which show that you're wrong.

The kind of organisms we see there (and most importantly the kind of organisms that we DON'T see there) show that you're wrong.

- even your evolutionist orientated displays can’t show anything to the contrary.
I can.

Any precambrian fossil should sufice. And we have several.

Evolutionary branches should suffice too, and we have them.

Wanna see?

Read the wiki entry. You might learn something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

So try not to repeatedly say that I won’t discuss or that I run away from the evidence.
Why not?

It's a fact.

You say "cambrian explosion points to creation". You just say it. You don't defend it.

Rather try to explain to me why the evidence is contrary to your claims.
It is not.

You just say it is.

Saying things is easy.

You need to find things that CONTRADICT the ToE. Not just things that the ToE doesn't predict.

You fart. The ToE didn't predict that. Ergo, it can't be right.

You're doing it wrong!

Actually, to me, the ToE does actually predict the Cambrian Explosion.
There are lots of plausible explanations, but perhaps they are not really needed. Or they might be something just incidental.
In my interpretation of the ToE there could (perhaps even should) be a critical point in the growing complexity that's like a crescendo. You reach a point in the growing complexity that "suddenly" has access to more and better possible designs.

Like a qualitative jump.

Now, the Cambrian Explosion is very strong evidence against YOUR position (i've shown you).

Well then TELL US ALL about the other-sided evidence that you are so familiar with!
How about we start with the fossil evidence for sudden creation? The Cambrian explosion, the fish explosion, the dinosaur explosion and every other full blown clear cut kind of creature that appears with no plausible precursors in the fossil record.
Ditto: tell us all about it.

You just mention it. You don't show us why it's evidence against the ToE or in favor of your position.

Start threads! Go ahead! Show us! Mentioning stuff doesn't count.

Where is your slow gradual mutation and natural selection evidence?
To quote you people: All around us.

The DNA sequencing of isolated populations shows this clearly.

Take two races of any species and look at their DNA.

Why make up a story that doesn’t fit the evidence when we already have one that does?
You mean the Bible?

We found no unicorns and no giants. We keep finding things (dead or alive) that can be arranged in a tree-like pattern. Nothing escapes this pattern. The ToE explains this pattern. Your bronze age myth does not.

Behe has said at the Dover trial that ‘we recognize design by the purposeful arrangement of parts.’
Argument from ignorance.
Everybody recognizes design.
Bandwagon argument.
Scientific literature discussing living organisms is full of design terminology.
So your evidence is terminology...

We say that it's in the best interest of a worm to find food. You can conclude that it shows interest, therefore it must have understanding.

As i always say, words is all you people have, and you're not good with them anyway.

The bizarre thing though is that even though they recognize design,
Appearance of design.
they insist that it is merely the ‘appearance of design’, not design itself.
Bingo.
How can they possibly KNOW that, except via their exclusive philosophy of naturalism which does not allow for a designer?
Actually, it's the other way around.

We KNOW a building has been designed because we know such designers.

About living structures we only know their appearance.

You say they ARE designed. How can you KNOW that, except via your exclusive religion which does not allow for anything that contradicts a book.

PARTS ARRANGED TO SERVE A PURPOSE is EVIDENCE OF DESIGN – positive evidence for design, not negative evidence against evolution.
I agree with you here.  This is your ONLY evidence (and it's positive).

Too bad your ONLY evidence is also evidence for our theory.

Parts which could NEVER have a purpose would contradict the ToE, and are not found.
Parts which no LONGER have a purpose contradict YEC, and have been found.

You lose.

So what am I supposed to look at, and why are you so reluctant to tell us all about your YEC facts?
Open your eyes, your religion has made you blind.
Blah blah blah.



-------
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: 4:12 PM on February 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By the way, the appearance of design is evidence of design (not evidence of YEC).

An intelligent designer could even act through Natural Selection.

Unlike derwood, i consider the cheesy appearance of the Moon as evidence for its dairy constitution. It's weak, yes, but it still counts.

If the ToE were the only two possibilities (they are NOT), then the appearance of design wouldn't be evidence for any of them, since both explain it (even though the ToE does a remarkably good job at it, and YEC performs as poorly as it gets).

The appearance of design was convincing enough for lots of brilliant minds before Darwin.

Even those who didn't want to believe in any gods found this piece of evidence too compelling.

And now we happen to know better. Some of us do, at least.



-------
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: 4:51 PM on February 19, 2010 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Darwin's view was that all was 'produced by laws acting around us'.  Where did these "laws" come from?


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 5:33 PM on February 19, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dubie903 at 11:33 PM on February 19, 2010 :
Darwin's view was that all was 'produced by laws acting around us'.  Where did these "laws" come from?

What point are you trying to make? How does your post relate to this thread? If it doesn't relate and you are simply trying to hijack a thread, DON'T. Start a new thread. If it does show us how.




-------
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: 7:18 PM on February 19, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dubie903
Darwin's view was that all was 'produced by laws acting around us'.  Where did these "laws" come from?
Wanna say "Goddidit"?

Fine. Go ahead.

Anything else?



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

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


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:04 PM on February 19, 2010 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp
By the way, the appearance of design is evidence of design (not evidence of YEC).


Yes, and evidence of design is evidence of a designer. Science can’t determine the identity of the designer only that there must be one.

An intelligent designer could even act through Natural Selection.


Once he had put the original program into the organism in question, yes. An intelligent designer could even have programmed a lot of variety into each kind of organism such that it would have a greater chance of surviving in a variety of environments.
YEC’s believe in just such a designer.

If the ToE were the only two possibilities (they are NOT),


What?

then the appearance of design wouldn't be evidence for any of them, since both explain it


What?
Sorry I’m trying to do the principle of charitable reading here, but apparently it isn’t helping.

If the ToE were the only two possibilities (they are NOT), (even though the ToE does a remarkably good job at it, and YEC performs as poorly as it gets).


More of the same –have you been smoking something Wisp –this is incoherent.

The appearance of design was convincing enough for lots of brilliant minds before Darwin.


Then what did design convince Darwin of? That there was no designer?

Even those who didn't want to believe in any gods found this piece of evidence too compelling.

And now we happen to know better. Some of us do, at least.


If you start with philosophical naturalism, you’re going to end up with the answer you want. Please don’t tell me that that is what the evidence tells you.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…” – now where did I hear 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: 10:29 AM on February 20, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Wisp
By the way, the appearance of design is evidence of design (not evidence of YEC).
Yes, and evidence of design is evidence of a designer.
Err... Of course... That's a tautology...

No design without a designer. Of course, of course.

Science can’t determine the identity of the designer
IF there is one.
only that there must be one.
No, it can't.

If it could you would show us. Or Dembski would. Or SOMEBODY.

[color=teal]An intelligent designer could even act through Natural Selection.
Once he had put the original program into the organism in question, yes.
Sorry?

Are you, by any chance, saying He couldn't act through Natural selection BEFORE that?

Are you setting a limit for your god?

The intelligent designer could act through Natural Selection even before there was any life.

Self replicating chemicals DO get selected. And it happens through NATURAL means.

An intelligent designer could even have programmed a lot of variety into each kind of organism such that it would have a greater chance of surviving in a variety of environments.
Yes, he could (even though there is no evidence for that).

He could have also designed more benign environments.

He could have also avoided predation, parasitism, competition, etc.
YEC’s believe in just such a designer.
But without reasons.
[/color]
If the ToE were the only two possibilities (they are NOT),
What?
Sorry! I meant to say "there are not". My mistake.

[color=teal]then the appearance of design wouldn't be evidence for any of them, since both explain it
What?
Sorry I’m trying to do the principle of charitable reading here, but apparently it isn’t helping.
Ok, i'll try again.

In principle any pair of competing hypotheses explaining some phenomenon have some points in common and some differences. Right?

If there were only two competing hypotheses (and one has to be right while the other one has to be wrong) the only pieces of evidence that should be considered (that could actually be deemed "evidence") would be those who support one of them and not the other (or that is better explained by one of them, or that negates one of them).

If YEC and the ToE were the only two competing explanations, then the appearance of design is NOT evidence, since BOTH explain it (again, the ToE gives an elegant explanation, and YEC is very similar to a non-explanation).
[/color]
The appearance of design was convincing enough for lots of brilliant minds before Darwin.
Then what did design convince Darwin of? That there was no designer?
The evidence that there was none, of course.

What else?

[color=teal]Even those who didn't want to believe in any gods found this piece of evidence too compelling.

And now we happen to know better. Some of us do, at least.
If you start with philosophical naturalism, you’re going to end up with the answer you want.
You can start with it in order to find flaws. In order to dismiss it via redvctio ad absvrdvm.

No, starting with it you DON'T necessarily get to the answer you want, if what you started with is incorrect.

Please don’t tell me that that is what the evidence tells you.
Ok, i won't.

But i can PROVE you're wrong.

I can PROVE that, starting by assuming something, you don't forcefully get to demonstrate it.

I'll prove it inside a quote so you can read past it if you don't feel like reading it.
The proof that square root of 2 is irrational:

Any rational number can be expressed as a/b.
0.5 can be expressed as ½, but also as 2/4.

Let's ASSUME √2 were a rational number. Then we can write it √2  = a/b where 'a' and 'b' are whole numbers. We additionally make it so that this a/b is simplified to the lowest terms, (2/4 becomes ½).

That's the same as saying 2 = a²/b²
Which is the same as saying a² = 2 * b².

Do you follow?

So the square of 'a' is an even number since it is two times something (something = b²).  From this we can know that a itself is also an even number.
Why?
Because it can't be odd; if 'a' itself was odd, then 'a * a' would be odd too.  Odd number times odd number is always odd.

Ok, if 'a' itself is an even number, then 'a' is 2 times some other whole number, or a = 2k where 'k' is this other number.  We don't need to know exactly what k is. It won't matter.  Soon is coming the contradiction:

If we substitute a = 2k into the original equation 2 = a²/b², this is what we get:
2 = (2k)²/b²
2 = 4k²/b²
2*b² = 4k²
b² = 2k²

This means 'b²' is even (it also is two times something), from which follows again that 'b' itself is an even number!!!

Do you see the contradiction?

We started the whole process saying that 'a/b' is simplified to the lowest terms, and now it turns out that 'a' and 'b' would both be even. So √2 cannot be rational.

By assuming something we demonstrated that something was wrong.

And thus i demonstrate that YOU're wrong.
Did you like it?

On the other hand, we assumed naturalism (whatever you mean by that, it's not clear to me), and we get no contradictions. We can explain a lot. Pretty much everything fits. When it doesn't fit, we keep trying, and it eventually does.

YOU can't do that.

If you try to explain something, you get lots of contradictions.

If you eliminate the contradictions (by saying Yahweh can do whatever he wants in whatever way he wants and make it appear as if something else actually happened because he's so magical and powerful that the laws of Nature don't apply to him), then you explain nothing. Nothing at all.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…” – now where did I hear that????
Don't know, don't care.



-------
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: 4:29 PM on February 20, 2010 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 3:29 PM on February 20, 2010 :


If you eliminate the contradictions (by saying Yahweh can do whatever he wants in whatever way he wants and make it appear as if something else actually happened because he's so magical and powerful that the laws of Nature don't apply to him), then you explain nothing. Nothing at all.



what "laws" of nature?  who made these "laws"?  for there to be "laws", does there not have to be a "law giver", and a "law enforcer"?  are there "laws"? darwin and dawkins both seem to agree that there are some sort of "laws", but how did they get here, if there really are "laws" to evolution?  and in a reply to my earlier post wisp, you said...

Quote from wisp at 7:04 PM on February 19, 2010 :
Wanna say "Goddidit"?

Fine. Go ahead.

Anything else?


so are you saying there is a god of evolution?  I was just asking where these proposed "laws" that darwin said were at work around us came from?  do you have an answer? i didn't say "Goddidit", i do not believe God used natural selection.


"There are no laws of nature, only customs of God" -Charles Kingsley


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 5:25 PM on February 20, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dubie903 at 5:25 PM on February 20, 2010 :
i do not believe God used natural selection.


Why?  Do you think it works today?



-------
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: 5:53 PM on February 20, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dubie
wisp
If you eliminate the contradictions (by saying Yahweh can do whatever he wants in whatever way he wants and make it appear as if something else actually happened because he's so magical and powerful that the laws of Nature don't apply to him), then you explain nothing. Nothing at all.
what "laws" of nature?
All of them.
who made these "laws"?
You seem to be assuming that it was a who.

Why?

for there to be "laws", does there not have to be a "law giver",
Why?

Can you make the same assumption for snow flakes and sunrises?

That kind of assumption is very common among primitives. They ended up with lots of gods.
and a "law enforcer"?
Well no.

Real laws cannot be violated, so no law enforcer is required.

are there "laws"?
Yes, there are.

I'm talking Physics here. What are you talking about?

darwin and dawkins both seem to agree that there are some sort of "laws", but how did they get here, if there really are "laws" to evolution?
That doesn't seem like a valid question.

Ok, via FedEx.

and in a reply to my earlier post wisp, you said...
Wanna say "Goddidit"?

Fine. Go ahead.

Anything else?
so are you saying there is a god of evolution?
No.
I was just asking where these proposed "laws" that darwin said were at work around us came from?
Laws are not physical things that can "come" and "go".
do you have an answer?
Yes: Your question makes no sense.
i didn't say "Goddidit", i do not believe God used natural selection.
Ok.
"There are no laws of nature, only customs of God" -Charles Kingsley
OK, that's another way to put it. It depends on how you define "God", of course.

It doesn't get you anywhere, but it's a nice philosophical exercise.

Dubie, do you really have any issues in this thread? Wouldn't you like to start a thread with your specific questions?


(Edited by wisp 2/20/2010 at 6:09 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: 6:09 PM on February 20, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dubie903

what "laws" of nature?

What if you replace the word 'laws' with 'properties' - We could just as easily say 'properties of nature'.  
For an example, I would say that gravity is an intrisic property of mass.  A property brought about by the hypothetical elementary particle, the gavitron.  



who made these "laws"?  for there to be "laws", does there not have to be a "law giver", and a "law enforcer"?  


Regardless of the origin of natural laws, whether you think that a supernatural deity willed them into existences, or believe in a naturalistic explanation, the fact is that the laws of nature appear to be unchanging in our current universe - our observable universe.  They work the same in a galaxy millions of light years away as they do in our own Milky Way, the same today as they did millions/billions of years ago.  

The fact is, we don't observe natural laws being violated.  We don't see evidence supporting any supernatural deity.  

For an example, violation of natural laws take place in the stories told in the Bible.  But there isn't any evidence showing these stories to be true.  In other words, they are myths.  A prime example is when Josua commands 'the sun to stand still' and 'the moon to stand still' in the sky.

Not only would this be impossible given what we know of the 'laws' of nature, it clearly shows that the writers of this Biblical story believed that the sun revolved around the earth - the earth was stationary.  And with good reason - most people today, if they didn't know better, would believe the same thing.  I know I would come to that conclusion.

For to make the 'sun stand still in the sky' would require the stopping of the rotation of the earth.  And then place it in motion again.  But the Biblical passage doesn't say 'Earth, thou stop spinning!'.  

The story is a myth, pure and simple.  


darwin and dawkins both seem to agree that there are some sort of "laws", but how did they get here, if there really are "laws" to evolution?


'Laws to evolution'?  Evolution is a fact, and the ToE endeavors to explain that fact.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:01 PM on February 20, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp, lighten up man. You make it sound like evolution is your religion.



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 1:09 PM on February 21, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How so?


-------
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: 4:56 PM on February 21, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

generally, the manner in which you regard Lester and others who hold a diff view then yourself. You sound like your blood pressure is going to shoot thru the roof.


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:38 PM on February 21, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:38 PM on February 21, 2010 :
generally, the manner in which you regard Lester and others who hold a diff view then yourself. You sound like your blood pressure is going to shoot thru the roof.


Pretty frustrating, don't you agree?



-------
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: 6:46 PM on February 21, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so it's my fault he sounds like he's going to explode?


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:18 PM on February 21, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:18 PM on February 21, 2010 :
so it's my fault he sounds like he's going to explode?


He's a long way from exploding, it's just frustrating answering the same question asked fifty different ways by someone apparently disinterested in the answer.



-------
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 21, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:38 PM on February 21, 2010 :
generally, the manner in which you regard Lester and others who hold a diff view then yourself. You sound like your blood pressure is going to shoot thru the roof.



It is not that people hold different views, it is that they:

1. often present themsleves as something they are not in an effort to make their anti-science views seem more substantive
2. ignore rebuttals/refutations of their claims only to make the same claims again later
3. rely nearly exclusively on the claims of people who engage in 1 and 2 above, especially if the person has written a book or has articles on a website
4. almost never admit error on anything -
Prime example, on another forum, an article was presented as 'evidence' that gene duplications do not help evolution.  This YEC article cited  a an essay in Science titled "Genome Duplication: The Stuff of Evolution?" excpet that in the refs, the YEC had changed the title to "Gene Duplication:  The Stuff of Evolution?" and when I pointed this out, the YEC that had presented it declared that it was just a 'typo'...

And so on....

It gets annoying and frustrating after a while.


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:51 AM on February 22, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Derwood,

one will notice the typo 'gene' was also made in the body of the referenced article, not just in the title.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:31 AM on February 22, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 10:31 AM on February 22, 2010 :
Derwood,

one will notice the typo 'gene' was also made in the body of the referenced article, not just in the title.


Oh, but it was just a typo....





-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:56 PM on February 22, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so where were we?..., someone was saying that the sea otter is the evidence needed to believe that land creatures evolved into the Whales we see today. Can you provide more proof or a likely scenario?

(Edited by porkchop 2/22/2010 at 6:59 PM).


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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 5:05 PM on February 22, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 9:38 PM on February 21, 2010 :
generally, the manner in which you regard Lester and others who hold a diff view then yourself. You sound like your blood pressure is going to shoot thru the roof.
Quote me.

You people can get quite frustrating from time to time, but that wasn't especially so recently. My posts were quite relaxed. Dunno what you're talking about.

I was explaining math and logic, and asking simple questions. You don't explode from that. Haha!



-------
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: 6:47 PM on February 22, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

porkchop
so where were we?..., someone was saying that the sea otter is the evidence needed to believe that land creatures evolved into the Whales we see today.
Is that so?

Who?
Can you provide more proof or a likely scenario?
More proof?

Aw, porkchop... Your mistakes are so very charming! ♥

There are no proofs in Science, darling. ^_^



-------
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: 7:31 PM on February 22, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No point in wasting typing.

Quote from Apoapsis at 7:04 PM on February 18, 2010 :
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: 8:08 PM on February 22, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:05 PM on February 22, 2010 :
so where were we?..., someone was saying that the sea otter is the evidence needed to believe that land creatures evolved into the Whales we see today.


If I remember correctly, the sea otter was to show you that creatures can live on both land and sea; which is somewhat required for whale evolution, and as I recall you had some beef with the whole idea of an organism being suited for both.

Can you provide more proof or a likely scenario?


Hows this; God did it. Genesis 1:21 -- So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

If you really want to talk about the debate, why don't you do a little research, here is the wiki article on whale evolution. I'll even jump start it for you by posting the first few lines:

The cetaceans (whales, dolphins  and porpoises) are descendants of land-living mammals. Their terrestrial origins are indicated by:

   * Their need to breathe air from the surface;
   * The bones of their fins, which resemble the jointed hands of land mammals; and
   * The vertical movement of their spines, characteristic more of a running mammal than of the horizontal movement of fish.


I'd also like to point out that they are also mammals, as that also points to their land beginnings. So lets start with that. Do you agree that these things point to a terrestrial origin? If not, why?


-------
"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: 01:14 AM on February 23, 2010 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 5:05 PM on February 22, 2010 :
so where were we?..., someone was saying that the sea otter is the evidence needed to believe that land creatures evolved into the Whales we see today. Can you provide more proof or a likely scenario?


I should add this sort of thing to my list...


-------
Lester:

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


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 07:54 AM on February 23, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 01:14 AM on February 23, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 5:05 PM on February 22, 2010 :
so where were we?..., someone was saying that the sea otter is the evidence needed to believe that land creatures evolved into the Whales we see today.


If I remember correctly, the sea otter was to show you that creatures can live on both land and sea; which is somewhat required for whale evolution, and as I recall you had some beef with the whole idea of an organism being suited for both.

Can you provide more proof or a likely scenario?


Hows this; God did it. Genesis 1:21 -- So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

If you really want to talk about the debate, why don't you do a little research, here is the wiki article on whale evolution. I'll even jump start it for you by posting the first few lines:

The cetaceans (whales, dolphins  and porpoises) are descendants of land-living mammals. Their terrestrial origins are indicated by:

   * Their need to breathe air from the surface;
   * The bones of their fins, which resemble the jointed hands of land mammals; and
   * The vertical movement of their spines, characteristic more of a running mammal than of the horizontal movement of fish.


I'd also like to point out that they are also mammals, as that also points to their land beginnings. So lets start with that. Do you agree that these things point to a terrestrial origin? If not, why?


I would agree they point to a being suited for land but I would not jump to conclusions. But lets start with a totally land dwelling creature living by the water's edge. What started to happen to this would-be otter that it started to take to the water full time?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:42 PM on February 23, 2010 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would agree they point to a being suited for land but I would not jump to
conclusions.


So how do you explain whales having the bones of land animals.  Why wouldn't they have fins more like fish?  Why would their spines work like land mammals and not like fish?  Why do sperm whales, that have to dive to great depths, get the bends?  What kind of conclusions do you draw from these facts?

What started to happen to this would-be otter that it started to take to the water full time?

A change in environment?  New land predators?  How does this affect the evidence we do have?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:41 PM on February 23, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:42 PM on February 23, 2010 :

But lets start with a totally land dwelling creature living by the water's edge. What started to happen to this would-be otter that it started to take to the water full time?


Let's keep it simple, it was hungry.

Nobody is saying that they went from totally land dwelling to taking to the water full-time.  It happens in small steps, like finding a food source in the water.

See why this is so frustrating?


(Edited by Apoapsis 2/24/2010 at 06:20 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: 10:40 PM on February 23, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:40 PM on February 23, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 7:42 PM on February 23, 2010 :

But lets start with a totally land dwelling creature living by the water's edge. What started to happen to this would-be otter that it started to take to the water full time?


Let's keep it simple, it was hungry.

Nobody is saying that they went from totally land dwelling to taking to the water full-time.  It happens in small steps, like finding a food source in the water.

See why this is so frustrating?


(Edited by Apoapsis 2/24/2010 at 06:20 AM).


Frustrating because I fail to see how a hungry mammal grabbing some food out of the water, like a bear hunting salmon in a river starts to evolve. So paint a scenario for me, the mammal occasionally snags a fish (if he's lucky) then what?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 7:42 PM on February 24, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Some students are never able to understand, but they flunk out.


-------
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: 7:44 PM on February 24, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 7:42 PM on February 24, 2010 :
Frustrating because I fail to see how a hungry mammal grabbing some food out of the water, like a bear hunting salmon in a river starts to evolve. So paint a scenario for me, the mammal occasionally snags a fish (if he's lucky) then what?


Since there is variation in populations, the ones better able to catch the aquatic food will probably start a new niche and start to break away from the rest of the population beginning in speciation.

Or if there is a food shortage on land, it can become a simple survival of the fittest, and those who are best suited to catch the aquatic food will prevail.

Agree? Disagree? What are your thoughts?


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


Posts: 551 | Posted: 8:11 PM on February 24, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

My thoughts, as the flunked out student of evolutionary discipline, is a wonderment of::::

"start a new niche and start to break away from the rest of the population beginning in speciation."

Tell me what exactly happens at this stage and if you could show it like a movie in fast motion, what would we bear witness to?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 8:16 PM on February 24, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:16 PM on February 24, 2010 :
"start a new niche and start to break away from the rest of the population beginning in speciation."


So you understand well enough.



-------
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: 8:35 PM on February 24, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 8:16 PM on February 24, 2010 :
My thoughts, as the flunked out student of evolutionary discipline, is a wonderment of::::

"start a new niche and start to break away from the rest of the population beginning in speciation."

Tell me what exactly happens at this stage and if you could show it like a movie in fast motion, what would we bear witness to?



Like I said before, populations have variations among individuals. Some will be better able to catch aquatic food than other members of the species. If those who are better able to catch the aquatic food start taking advantage of this, they can essentially create a new ecological niche (a new way of surviving by attaining a new food source). Once this happens it is very likely that the two populations (one getting food on land, the other in water) will begin to interact differently with each other, distancing themselves socially, even if they live in the same area.

When this happens a genetic barrier starts up between the two populations, meaning they stop mating with members of the opposite population. This will happen even if the two populations can successfully produce fertile offspring. This is seen when a member of the species can successfully survive by being adapted to either land food or water food, but will not be successful as a mix of the two, as they wouldn't be specialized in either one.

Once this genetic barrier is up and the populations stop breeding with each other begins the divergence of the species into two separate ones, thus starting the process of speciation via a new niche.


-------
"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: 9:26 PM on February 24, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Our knowledge on the process is increasing, and will increase. And yet we can't know for sure every small step on the way.

Your demand of perfection is just silly. There is no discussion, there is no argument. Each answer you receive will only find another question. You will never be satisfied, no matter what (like with the viviparous, oviparous and ovoviviparous fish we've shown you, or the good mutations, etc).

There are several possible causes, and several possible ways for every little (or not so little) step. That's not a flaw in the theory in ANY way.

On the other hand, there is no way YOUR version could have happened. Now THAT's a flaw.

The problem isn't that you can't pinpoint a way it could have happened, but that it couldn't have happened.

You make a choice about some aspect of your story, and another aspect gets invalidated (this is especially true regarding many things around the ark myth).



-------
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: 11:45 PM on February 24, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:45 PM on February 24, 2010 :
Our knowledge on the process is increasing, and will increase. And yet we can't know for sure every small step on the way.

Your demand of perfection is just silly. There is no discussion, there is no argument.
There are several possible causes, and several possible ways for every little (or not so little) step. That's not a flaw in the theory in ANY way.

On the other hand, there is no way YOUR version could have happened. Now THAT's a flaw.

The problem isn't that you can't pinpoint a way it could have happened, but that it couldn't have happened.




You sound a little disconcerted by feeling the need to quickly point out that "my version" could never have happened. You don't sound too sure about your version otherwise you would not have given my version a mention ( I didn't mention it.)

But since you did, why is it my way could not have happened? But chemicals  can self organize into complex life and the big bang can create matter from nothing (see 1st law of thermodynamics)



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 4:53 PM on February 25, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:45 PM on February 24, 2010 :
Our knowledge on the process is increasing, and will increase. And yet we can't know for sure every small step on the way.

Your demand of perfection is just silly. There is no discussion, there is no argument




What perfection am I demanding? I asked a simple quest about watching the evolution movie in fast-forward motion. If we could, would we see elephants growing longer trunks out of no trunks with each offspring? Same for Giraffe necks? Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?



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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 4:58 PM on February 25, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 4:58 PM on February 25, 2010 :
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?


No, why would we when they don't now?

You are being shown examples in the here and now of other mammals in various stages of adaptation to living in the water.  Are you suggesting that what we see now could not have happened in the past?



-------
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: 5:07 PM on February 25, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:45 PM on February 24, 2010 :

Your demand of perfection is just silly. There is no discussion, there is no argument. Each answer you receive will only find another question. You will never be satisfied, no matter what.



While I agree Porkchop is being overly skeptic, I can partially understand it. I used to take evolution on faith! I had to, really. I was around 9 when I was first introduced to evolution. I was completely baffled at how such a thing was possible. Even when I started learning about it I was quite skeptical, 'could such a process account for the diversity of life all around us from a simple cell!?!'

Even when I started 'debating' against creationists my knowledge of evolution was not good and I had many misconceptions. Which I could tell because many questions the creationists asked were questions I wanted others to answer as well, even though looking back half of them were founded on blatant ignorance and misinformation.

Just thinking about how skeptical I was of such a theory, and how creationists made me really consider their side. I truly wonder how I would have turned out if the environment I grew up in wasn't as pro science (the real kind) and pro (real) education as it was. Ingrained beliefs coupled with ignorance is seldom transcended into free thinking and knowledge. Such a path must be cautiously pursued, or they will be lost forever in the darkness of the cave, chasing mere silhouettes as if they are the true bearers of reality.


-------
"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: 5:13 PM on February 25, 2010 | IP
porkchop

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 5:07 PM on February 25, 2010 :
Quote from porkchop at 4:58 PM on February 25, 2010 :
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?


No, why would we when they don't now?

You are being shown examples in the here and now of other mammals in various stages of adaptation to living in the water.  Are you suggesting that what we see now could not have happened in the past?



But do you see anything now? what does a mammal do to start taking to the water, it has to start happening one day. How about the day he starts breathing full time under water, does an actual day like that actually arrive? Is there not a first time for everything?




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


Posts: 434 | Posted: 6:48 PM on February 25, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:48 PM on February 25, 2010 :
But do you see anything now? what does a mammal do to start taking to the water, it has to start happening one day. How about the day he starts breathing full time under water, does an actual day like that actually arrive? Is there not a first time for everything?


We see the evidence left behind; and from that evidence we can determine what happened. Will we know every exact detail? No, but what we do know can't be exempted because we don't know every little step or if it contradicts certain religious dogma.

And you might want to look up how whales breathe, as it isn't underwater. They have to go up to the surface and breathe air just like you and me would have to do if we livid in the ocean.


-------
"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: 7:47 PM on February 25, 2010 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from porkchop at 6:48 PM on February 25, 2010 :
But do you see anything now?


We see mammals in all stages of adaptation to an aquatic environment, from whales to fishing cats.  Sea otters are a good example because they can already give birth at sea, better adapted at that than seals and walrus.

what does a mammal do to start taking to the water, it has to start happening one day. How about the day he starts breathing full time under water, does an actual day like that actually arrive? Is there not a first time for everything?


Since when do mammals breath under water?


(Edited by Apoapsis 2/25/2010 at 9:49 PM).


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

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:42 PM on February 25, 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.