Grey_Wolf_c
Posts: 46
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | | Obviously, there would have to be at least one pair of each 'kind' (a term to be defined later) |
Later when, Dave? It is rather central to the discussion.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | There are many such quotes that I could give you
|
"A million dollars will now fall in my lap" (looks up). D@mm, wishing doesn't change reality. You finding people's "predictions" means nothing. Evidence does. There have always been cranks. Nevertheless, we have evidence for the ToE and you do not have any for your own "hypothesis", so ToE wins by default.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | | I am finding out right here in much greater detail the enormity of the conundrums that Darwinists are faced with in attempting to make their theory square with the evidence from all branches of science. The latest, of course is the odd idea that a modern lungfish, which is indistinguishable from an "ancient" lungfish, supposedly has a far different biochemical makeup. |
Present evidence that they are indistinguishable, Dave. Your word has long been worth less than nothing in this discussion. You could tell me that the sun rises in the East and that would prompt me to check the following morning. Your only back-up is a quote from a scientist that went back on his hypothesis a year later.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | | Why? "Well, because Evolution is true, of course, and those critters have been evolving for 400 million years! |
No, Dave. Because bacteria cannot be like their ancient bacteria (because the modern ones are too different between them), and horses are not like the fist mammals and...
Bottom line is that for every creature whose skeleton has not changed too much (and I still think that a biologist would have no trouble telling apart a modern and ancient lungfish), *millions* of animals are extremelly different in some ways but oh-so-very close in others. That's the overwheliming evidence, Dave. The ocassional creature whose skeleton hasn't changed much doesn't mean squat in the face of every other one.
Besides, the point of the lungfish was to support that stupid statement that "two alike creatures are alike genetically", remember? The one that was killed with the dophin/shark example? You cannot even keep your arguments straight.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | So if Darwinism is bankrupt for explaining the Origin of Species [and I will continue to show you that it is]
|
Dave, you cannot even say what the ToE states, so how can you criticise it? Show your knowledge, Dave, by giving us a textbook definition of the ToE. I'll wager that you cannot. Define LCA, too, since it comes up so often.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | First, what do I mean by "genetically rich"? [...] For example, a group of 1000 similar looking "mutt" dogs on a desert island which have unrestricted access to the entire group would generally continue to produce "mutt" dogs. [...] Now if a dog breeder shows up on the island and begins isolating small groups of dogs, I think you know what will happen. You will end up with Great Danes and Chihuahuas and everything in between. [...] "Genetically rich" as I (and AIG) use the term, simply means "muttish" if you will. It simply means that Adam and Eve possessed ALL the genetic information which ever there was in the human genome
|
So Adam had the gene from blue eyes, and green eyes, and brond eyes? At the same time? How? He also had the gene for red hair, and black hair and brown hair and blonde hair? And he was also both tall and short, and had all skin colours? And you tell us that with a straight face?
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | | We are not told in the Genesis account that there were any differences in language until the Towel of Babel incident, so we assume that there was only one language originally. |
When did the Babel incident happen, Dave? I predict that we have written accounts in at least three different languages predating Babel.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | | Another characteristic of Adam and Eve was that they were much more free of harmful mutations than we are today. How do we know this? Simply by observing that harmful mutations tend to accumulate over time in any population. |
False. Present evidence to support your baseless assertion, Dave.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | GW... | Quote | | 2) You asked for a list of examples in the form of (modern animal)-like critter. I gave you that. |
You listed "human like critter" at every step. I think you know what I am looking for. And I am beginning to think that for some reason, no one wants to stick their neck out and list them all. |
Yes, I know what you want. You want a list of "bacteria-like" then "worm-like" then "fish-like". But since that would be wrong, I cannot give it to you. Because since it is the human descent, at every point it has to be human-like, Dave. And I gave you the reason why it is human like.
Of course, many other modern creatures share some of those characteristics. Indeed, I could do the list with Gorilla-like (except homo). This is what the ToE *says*, Dave, and you wishing that some LCA a billion years ago looked like a modern bacteria, or a modern fish, is wishful thinking of the highest orde, because they did not look anything close, to trained eyes.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | Oh, but you are so wrong. There IS such a list! The question makes perfect sense. You most definitely SHOULD be able to make a Bacteria-to-Dave Hawkins ancestry list, at least with made up names for the various organisms. You see, if ToE is true, then there DEFINITELY WAS a real live bacterium on my family tree -- "Great ... great grandpa" if you will. And there DEFINITELY WAS a real live worm-like creature, and there definitely was a fish-like creature, etc. If ToE is true, then these creatures all truly lived and died on this planet. They may not look exactly like modern species, which is why you are so non-comittal, but they truly lived on earth, if ToE is true.
|
Dave, those creatures were as worm-like as they were human-like, for the reason that I added after each human-like. You don't like it, or understand it, but nevertheless that is what the ToE *says*. You asked for it, you got precisely what you asked for, even if it was not what you wanted since it did not fit your idiotic strawman version of the ToE. But you cannot rewrite the ToE so it "makes sense to Dave" anymore than you can change the Theory of General Relativity or Quantum Theory. They explain the data and are internally consistent and make useful predictions. Common sense, however, is very dangerous in science, because it leads to the kind of stupidity you get from Flat Earthers.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | | If the ancient "living fossils" are the same biochemically as the modern ones, as Zuckerkandl wrote in 1965, and as I am inclined to believe that many scientists believed also up to that point, |
You believe it was so (mostly because it supports your burning strawman), but a) Zuckerkandl wrote that it was controversial (i.e. science-speak for "most other scientists think it is bullshit and I better have very solid evidence") and he discarded the idea a year later!. Present evidence anyone else believed it Dave. Because you saying something not only doesn't make it true, given your track record it makes it suspect.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | Eric... | Quote | | And when, oh when, Dave, are you going to deal with the implications of the list you asked me to prepare? |
When you complete the list I asked for.
|
I gave you the list, Dave. Your pathetic complaints about the list doesn't make it less true. Deal with what the ToE says, not what you would like it to say.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | | Actually, I've given good solid evidence for 7 of my points and we are on 8th and 9th now (Points C & D). You're right, though, that I have not yet given any positive evidence yet for the current points. That's coming. |
Very little of what you have presented was evidence for your "hypothesis" (evidence against evolution isn't evidence for creation, particularly when you need ultra-fast evolution yourself), and *nothing* you has presented has survived cross-examination. Mostly because you keep refusing to stick to a topic until all our problems with it are answered. Like the paleosols. You were utterly defeated because there are still open questions that you have not answered - like how continents could move at hundreds of mph without melting, boiling the water and killing everything on Earth, just to mention one.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | There are many questions of mine that you all do not answer also.
|
Please give us 10 questions you have posed that you got no answer for, Dave. I doubt you can find even half that. You got answers, but you a) didn't accept the answer; b) didn't understand the answer or c) had to ignore it because it made big holes in your ideas.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | | My approach is to focus on the topics I am most interested in. |
Your approach is to present "evidence" "against evolution" and then run away from the topic when you are shown to be wrong.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | | Whenever you or Deadman or 7 Popes post that big list of questions, all you are doing is showing your dishonesty by pretending that I am not ABLE to answer them. Anyone with any sense of ethics at all knows that "Unanswered Questions != Unanswerable Questions." |
Actually, what they show is that you are not able to answer them, because only someone that cannot answer questions on a topic he started and thus presumably is an interest of his, leaves questions unanswered and changes subject. That is actually the mark of the lier, Dave: the changing of subjects when things get tough and the lies are exposed.
| Quote (afdave @ Oct. 06 2006,09:10) | | Grey_Wolf_c ... I will now refer to you as "GW" ... I am not into using the SHIFT key 3 separate times just to type someone's name properly ... sorry! Hope that helps! :-) |
Again, if you had the reading ability that God gave to the pistachio, you would have noticed that the name I sign with is "Grey Wolf" so all it takes is two shifts.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
|
