RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (46) < ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... >   
  Topic: Can you do geology and junk the evolution bits ?, Anti science.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3285
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,10:14   

Wait, I just want to be clear here Robert.  You think Felids and Marsupial Cats are the same, correct?

You think that these two critters are the same:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:QuollSS7196.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tigerramki.jpg

Because the Tiger and the Tiger Quoll (also known as the Native Cat) have the same name, then they are the same...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,10:17   

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 15 2009,10:10)
Quote (George @ Dec. 15 2009,07:35)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 15 2009,03:05)
These creationists would be wrong. not right about everything although farther along then 'others".
I wrote a essay and made my case there.
Remember its not about words but about rejecting the conclusion of evolutionists...

You would do well to heed your own advice.  No, it's not about words.  It's about data.
 
Quote
My evidence is excellent. In fact convergent concepts are my evidence. I then put in a twist.

(All bolding mine.)

You keep using that word.  I don't think it means what you think it means.  
Concepts are not evidence.  Evidence is data.  Where are your data?  Where is your analysis?  Have you numerically compared the characteristics of Tasmanian wolves, living and fossil canids, and fossil marsupials to come up with an objective evaluation of similarities?  Have you been able to trace these similarities through the fossil record?

Until you do, no one will listen to you.  Except to make fun of you.

I agree - his knowledge of genetics (and evo-devo, and biology, history, geology...etc) would make a grade-school student laugh at him.  Hmm - what does that say about creationists?  Actually, how  many creationists would agree with him?

I add my voice to the calls for him to present his evidence.  To paraphrase a famous man, Robert - "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means." (sorry, it's been a long time)

How's that for Epic Fail?  I read the top part, thought "this will be the one I use to quote" and completely fail to read the quote that I was going to use.  Gah!  If it's any consolation, everybody is probably thinking the same thing.  Can I blame just waking up a short time ago?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
JohnW



Posts: 2228
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,11:52   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 15 2009,08:14)
Wait, I just want to be clear here Robert.  You think Felids and Marsupial Cats are the same, correct?

You think that these two critters are the same:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:QuollSS7196.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tigerramki.jpg

Because the Tiger and the Tiger Quoll (also known as the Native Cat) have the same name, then they are the same...

To me, the quoll looks more like a weasel than a cat, and the thylacine looks more like a fox than a wolf.  So if I was an eighteenth-century biologist, Robert might now be arguing that they were really weasels and foxes, not cats and wolves.

And what about oysters and prairie oysters?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,13:11   



The Blind Men and the Elephant by John Godfrey Saxe

(A poetic parable about the stupidity of Bobby B's  methodologies):

------------------------------------------------------

It was six men of Hindustan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind)
That each by observation
Might satisfy the mind.

The first approached the Elephant
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side
At once began to bawl:
"Bless me, it seems the Elephant
Is very like a wall"   ...

...The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Blindmen_and_the_Elephant

Superficial similarities don't mean a hell of a lot when significant details = major differences, Bobby B.

Oh, and by the way, Harlan Bretz managed to publish his views many, many times during the 1920's-30's, Bobby.

You haven't, because you have nothing to publish.

Bretz was aware that his job was to find a "mechanism" for his Missoula flood event, Bobby B. -- the problem was that he couldn't see the obvious right in front of his eyes and didn't accept the word of his colleague J.T. Pardee about the ancient glacial-dam source ( the "mechanism") of the Scablands flood. This was exactly what Bretz needed, though and when Pardee and Bretz finally began to work together on the subject, the geological world quickly recognized the validity of their claims...

This stands in stark contrast to your belief that theories without plausible causative mechanisms should be stupidly accepted -- just because you say so, Booby Byers.

The moral of the story is : provide details and fill out your theories with generative mechanisms and clear data and you get accepted.

Or, be a Blind Booby B. and get laughed at.

-------------------------------------

A listing of Bretz' publications when you claimed he was being ignored, Booby:

Bretz, J.H., 1923a.  Glacial drainage on the Columbia Plateau.  Geological  
Society of America Bulletin, v.34, p.573-608.
--, 1923b.  The Channeled Scabland of the Columbia Plateau.  Journal of  
Geology, v.31, p.617-649.
--, 1925.  The Spokane flood beyond the Channeled Scablands.  Jounral of  
Geology, v.33, p.97-115, 236-259.
--, 1927.  Channeled Scabland and the Spokane Flood.  Journal of  
Washington Academy of Sciences, v.18, p.200-211.
--, 1928a.  Alternate hypotheses for channeled scabland.  Journal of  
Geology, v.36, p.193-223, 312-341.
--, 1928b.  Bars of Channeled Scabland.  Geological Society of America  
Bulletin, v.39, p.643-702.
--, 1928c.  The Channeld Scabland of eastern Washington.  Geographical  
Review, v.18, p.446-477.
--, 1929.  Valley deposits immediately east of the Channeled Scabland of  
Washington.  Journal of Geology, v.37, p.393-427, 505-541.
--, 1930a.  Lake Missoula and the Spokane Flood.  Geological Society of  
America Bulletin, v.41, p.92-93.
--, 1930b.  Valley deposits immediately west of the channeled scabland.  
Journal of Geology, v.38, p.385-422.
--, 1932.  The Grand Coulee.  American Geographical Society, Special  
Publication 15, p.1-89.

 You might want to read this FACTUAL recounting of the episode in American science http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/bretz_re.html  rather than the usual bullshitting, fraudulent  creationist accounts, Booby.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Henry J



Posts: 4048
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,15:41   

I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species. On the contrary, placental reproduction would give its carriers an advantage over their marsupial or egg laying analogs; otherwise placental reproduction would never have developed.

Also if marsupials had developed from one or a few branches of placentals, they would be closest related to the branches from which they developed.

If Tasmanian wolves had developed from placental wolves, they would be closest related to placental wolves, rather than to other types of marsupials that don't resemble wolves at all.

Henry

  
JohnW



Posts: 2228
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,15:51   

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2009,13:41)
I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species. On the contrary, placental reproduction would give its carriers an advantage over their marsupial or egg laying analogs; otherwise placental reproduction would never have developed.

We see dingoes where there used to be thylacines.  I'm sure Robert's explanation will be entertaining.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,15:56   

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2009,13:41)
I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species.

It's also worth noting that some imported placentals have been extremely successful in Australia, at the expense of the natives. There is good evidence that dingos have been there for what is, according to Robert, almost the age of the earth. Certainly since Teh Flud. Yet strangely they show no signs of becoming marsupial!

Later introduced species like rabbits also do quite well.

Roberts "theory" isn't not just fractally wrong, it's fractally stupid. No matter what direction or scale you look at it, you find more stupid.

  
khan



Posts: 1481
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,16:02   

Quote (Reed @ Dec. 15 2009,16:56)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2009,13:41)
I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species.

It's also worth noting that some imported placentals have been extremely successful in Australia, at the expense of the natives. There is good evidence that dingos have been there for what is, according to Robert, almost the age of the earth. Certainly since Teh Flud. Yet strangely they show no signs of becoming marsupial!

Later introduced species like rabbits also do quite well.

Roberts "theory" isn't not just fractally wrong, it's fractally stupid. No matter what direction or scale you look at it, you find more stupid.

Are cane toads becoming marsupial?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1016
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,17:55   

Quote (khan @ Dec. 15 2009,16:02)
Quote (Reed @ Dec. 15 2009,16:56)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2009,13:41)
I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species.

It's also worth noting that some imported placentals have been extremely successful in Australia, at the expense of the natives. There is good evidence that dingos have been there for what is, according to Robert, almost the age of the earth. Certainly since Teh Flud. Yet strangely they show no signs of becoming marsupial!

Later introduced species like rabbits also do quite well.

Roberts "theory" isn't not just fractally wrong, it's fractally stupid. No matter what direction or scale you look at it, you find more stupid.

Are cane toads becoming marsupial?

Licking toads might be an explanation for Robert's assertions.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2009,23:26   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 15 2009,17:55)
Quote (khan @ Dec. 15 2009,16:02)
Quote (Reed @ Dec. 15 2009,16:56)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2009,13:41)
I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species.

It's also worth noting that some imported placentals have been extremely successful in Australia, at the expense of the natives. There is good evidence that dingos have been there for what is, according to Robert, almost the age of the earth. Certainly since Teh Flud. Yet strangely they show no signs of becoming marsupial!

Later introduced species like rabbits also do quite well.

Roberts "theory" isn't not just fractally wrong, it's fractally stupid. No matter what direction or scale you look at it, you find more stupid.

Are cane toads becoming marsupial?

Licking toads might be an explanation for Robert's assertions.

It depends on what (or where) the toads are licking.... :O

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2009,00:40   

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 15 2009,04:46)
Quote
I see my case the same way. The evidence backing up my assertions is solid and the issue of mechanism should not be even brought up.

You are dead wrong.

Your two examples are excellent evidence for the scientific method: Hypotheses are mad based on observations. The observations require an explanation, a theory about causes for the observed facts.

Such theories were proposed, tested, researched and found valid; they accounted for the observed facts in a coherent manner consistent with all scientific knowledge about our world. Further evidence have been found, the continents are still moving!

Mechanisms have been found. If no evidence and no mechanisms had been found, those hypotheses would have been in great trouble by now!

That's why your personal thoughts cannot be taken seriously. They go against all our knowledge about the world and of a similar quality as theories about the moon being made of green cheese.

You can make such assertions without mechanism, but until you present mechanism/evidence they will remain stupid nonsense as far as the rest of the world population is concerned.

Any idiot can make stupid assertions, you are a perfect example of that.

See what happened to all the christian idiots who asserted that the Earth was the center of the universe?

They thought they didn't need a mechanism, they relied on the bible. The scientific method employed by skeptics making observations of facts and finding mechanism exposed the religious idiocy for all the world to see.

Your idiocy is a few centuries too late, we have already all the mechanisms in place. Before you have a mechanism,you have nothing but emanations from a dysfunctional brain.

you seem to misunderstand my two examples.
They proposed and tried to live with the evidence they had.
They were both attacked and denied because of mechanism complaints.
Yet both are accepted today. The serious refusal to accept these guys ideas was a waste of time.
Anyways my point is that mechanism should not get in the way of powerful or pretty good evidence.
Just fight the evidence and not derail ideas on secondary matters.
my two examples support me and don't oppose me.

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2009,01:07   

Quote (Reed @ Dec. 15 2009,05:27)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 15 2009,01:36)

I propose my ideas on marsupials etc being placentals based on living and fossil evidence.

You again confuse assertion with evidence. You haven't presented a your "theory" sufficient specificity to define what evidence would support it, never mind actually presenting such evidence. Your "theory" remains the bald assertions that
1) They look the same
2) This alleged sameness is more important than other quantifiable, highly successful means of determining relatedness.

Note that #1 is simply wrong unless you are extremely selective about which traits you look at, yet you have provided no justification for this selectivity.
       
Quote
I don't need to provide mechanism, except a few thoughts, to make a solid assertion.

You're problem isn't just the absence of a mechanism, it's the absence of any room for a plausible mechanism that doesn't contradict a mountain of well established data. It would be one thing if we had absolutely no idea about things like genetics and mutation rates and developmental biology and so on. 150 years ago, Darwin didn't have a mechanism for traits being passed to the next generation, but he had pretty good evidence that it happened. Today, we know those mechanisms in exquisite detail, and they don't leave any room for your bullshit "theory".

I don't confuse assertion with evidence. The evidence is as i present it.
I expect to persuade a creationist audience or anyone on this.
its all that is needed. The opposition also almost has just this.
In fact saying marsupials or creodont (sp) etc are separate unrelated orders doesn't go much farther then seeing pouches or teeth ot a little curve in skull. All things that are minor compared to the great details that force ideas on convergent evolution.

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2009,01:10   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 15 2009,10:14)
Wait, I just want to be clear here Robert.  You think Felids and Marsupial Cats are the same, correct?

You think that these two critters are the same:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:QuollSS7196.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tigerramki.jpg

Because the Tiger and the Tiger Quoll (also known as the Native Cat) have the same name, then they are the same...

No. Been   over this. Its not words. its physical structure.
The marsupial lion looked, acted, and was just a lion. Just had a pouch. Well the girls.

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2009,01:15   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Dec. 15 2009,13:11)


The Blind Men and the Elephant by John Godfrey Saxe

(A poetic parable about the stupidity of Bobby B's  methodologies):

------------------------------------------------------

It was six men of Hindustan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind)
That each by observation
Might satisfy the mind.

The first approached the Elephant
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side
At once began to bawl:
"Bless me, it seems the Elephant
Is very like a wall"   ...

...The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Blindmen_and_the_Elephant

Superficial similarities don't mean a hell of a lot when significant details = major differences, Bobby B.

Oh, and by the way, Harlan Bretz managed to publish his views many, many times during the 1920's-30's, Bobby.

You haven't, because you have nothing to publish.

Bretz was aware that his job was to find a "mechanism" for his Missoula flood event, Bobby B. -- the problem was that he couldn't see the obvious right in front of his eyes and didn't accept the word of his colleague J.T. Pardee about the ancient glacial-dam source ( the "mechanism") of the Scablands flood. This was exactly what Bretz needed, though and when Pardee and Bretz finally began to work together on the subject, the geological world quickly recognized the validity of their claims...

This stands in stark contrast to your belief that theories without plausible causative mechanisms should be stupidly accepted -- just because you say so, Booby Byers.

The moral of the story is : provide details and fill out your theories with generative mechanisms and clear data and you get accepted.

Or, be a Blind Booby B. and get laughed at.

-------------------------------------

A listing of Bretz' publications when you claimed he was being ignored, Booby:

Bretz, J.H., 1923a.  Glacial drainage on the Columbia Plateau.  Geological  
Society of America Bulletin, v.34, p.573-608.
--, 1923b.  The Channeled Scabland of the Columbia Plateau.  Journal of  
Geology, v.31, p.617-649.
--, 1925.  The Spokane flood beyond the Channeled Scablands.  Jounral of  
Geology, v.33, p.97-115, 236-259.
--, 1927.  Channeled Scabland and the Spokane Flood.  Journal of  
Washington Academy of Sciences, v.18, p.200-211.
--, 1928a.  Alternate hypotheses for channeled scabland.  Journal of  
Geology, v.36, p.193-223, 312-341.
--, 1928b.  Bars of Channeled Scabland.  Geological Society of America  
Bulletin, v.39, p.643-702.
--, 1928c.  The Channeld Scabland of eastern Washington.  Geographical  
Review, v.18, p.446-477.
--, 1929.  Valley deposits immediately east of the Channeled Scabland of  
Washington.  Journal of Geology, v.37, p.393-427, 505-541.
--, 1930a.  Lake Missoula and the Spokane Flood.  Geological Society of  
America Bulletin, v.41, p.92-93.
--, 1930b.  Valley deposits immediately west of the channeled scabland.  
Journal of Geology, v.38, p.385-422.
--, 1932.  The Grand Coulee.  American Geographical Society, Special  
Publication 15, p.1-89.

 You might want to read this FACTUAL recounting of the episode in American science http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/bretz_re.html  rather than the usual bullshitting, fraudulent  creationist accounts, Booby.

Nope your wrong.
Bretz was rejected and fought against. A big complaint was that there was no water for the Missoula flood. they used this to dismiss his fantastic evidence of a great flood.
Water source was a irrelevant point to the reality and evidence of the mega flood.
yet they tried to use this lack of a water mechanism to stop his ideas.
They lost and are just the bad and dumb guys in the story.

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2009,01:21   

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 15 2009,15:41)
I do not see how marsupial reproduction would ever be an adaptation to an environment by previously placental species. On the contrary, placental reproduction would give its carriers an advantage over their marsupial or egg laying analogs; otherwise placental reproduction would never have developed.

Also if marsupials had developed from one or a few branches of placentals, they would be closest related to the branches from which they developed.

If Tasmanian wolves had developed from placental wolves, they would be closest related to placental wolves, rather than to other types of marsupials that don't resemble wolves at all.

Henry

Thats my point.
I'm saying marsupial wolves are not more related to "marsupials" then to other wolves.
Mechanism again.
I see marsupialism as a adaptation of creatures to more rapidly reproduce in areas farthest from the ark. Its not the water or air but a innate impulse to quickly refill the earth. This however is not the strengh of my claims.
I attack the, strange, concept here of seeing same shaped creatures as the same because of convergent evolution and not seeing them as actually the same things as they look like. With the details of marsupialism being the adaption , as it were, to niche.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2009,02:02   

hahahahahahahahahaha

ETA no that's really all I had to say.

oh, well, OK.  please, Cane toads.  yes.  Ok.  

hahahahahahahahahahaha

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2009,02:08   

Quote
Thats my point.
I'm saying marsupial wolves are not more related to "marsupials" then to other wolves.
Mechanism again.

Robert, please define 'related', 'relation', 'relationship.

Since you have demonstrated utter disregard for the concept of évidence, please also consider this and tell us whether you think it nonsense or not:

Évidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring évidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via évidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Évidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2009,03:56   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 16 2009,23:07)
I don't confuse The evidence is as i present it.

You mean non-existent ? Because all you have presented is vague hand waving and assertions.

I notice you didn't bother to explain dingos didn't become marsupial ?

           
Quote
Its not the water or air but a innate impulse to quickly refill the earth.

How does this "innate impulse" translate into changes in phenotype and genotype ? That is one of the many mechanisms you failed to produce.

Aside:
The funniest thing to me about Roberts "but they look the same" argument is that even superficially, they really don't look that much alike. If I saw a thylacine out in the woods, I wouldn't say "look, a wolf!" I would say "WTF is that ?" Looking through the pictures at http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylaci....e_1.htm yes, it looks strangely doggy from some angles, but man that's weird looking critter. The films (1 2 3 4 5) don't really give much of a feel to how it would move out in the open, but it doesn't seem particularly dog like.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2009,09:20   

Robert, I look much more like my father than I look like my mother.

Am I more closely related to him than to her?

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2009,17:13   

I'm curious as to why being marsupial is necessary for the rapid reproduction Robert seems to think had to occur.  Did the rest of the world, including all those places further away from (wherever Noah's Ark is supposed to be), not need animals to reproduce incredibly fast (poor females - were they in the quiverfull movement too?) - in other words, being an egg-laying bird or reptile, or being a placental mammal, was good enough for other places, why was it not good enough for Australia?

Why aren't the marsupials dominant in the Americas, since we have some, if their reproduction was so incredibly fast?  

Is this all part of the Grand Plan of YHVH?

(ps - if I wasn't at work, I could link to the Onion article on YHVH creating the world, again, while the Sumerians were trying to get their work done.  Pretty funny, and on target for those who think the world was created, and flooded, while other civilizations went on about their daily business.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
khan



Posts: 1481
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2009,17:26   

Sumerians

Just to be sure: http://tinyurl.com/y9u7tdp

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2009,17:52   

Hey, Robert!

I had an urge to buy a pouch in Calif. which is far away from Ark. and that makes me a marsupial, right?

Sorry, can't stay and chat.  Must hop to it.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2009,19:17   

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolution_going_great_reports

From the same place.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2009,04:06   

Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 17 2009,17:13)
I'm curious as to why being marsupial is necessary for the rapid reproduction Robert seems to think had to occur.  Did the rest of the world, including all those places further away from (wherever Noah's Ark is supposed to be), not need animals to reproduce incredibly fast (poor females - were they in the quiverfull movement too?) - in other words, being an egg-laying bird or reptile, or being a placental mammal, was good enough for other places, why was it not good enough for Australia?

Why aren't the marsupials dominant in the Americas, since we have some, if their reproduction was so incredibly fast?  

Is this all part of the Grand Plan of YHVH?

(ps - if I wasn't at work, I could link to the Onion article on YHVH creating the world, again, while the Sumerians were trying to get their work done.  Pretty funny, and on target for those who think the world was created, and flooded, while other civilizations went on about their daily business.

Again this is about mechanism. Marsupials were in great diversity in south America actually. i just speculate it was because the rapid colonization from the Ark demanded a steady but mobile reproduction. the whole point of marsupialism is to get the fetus out of the womb and get another growing. Speed was everything. then later it just stays in that shift. There is no need today for speed and so its slowed down but the proceadure is the same.
This is speculation and not conclusion based on the anatomical bodies of fossil and living marsupials in the literature.
Plus biblical boundaries leading the way.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2009,05:51   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
There is no need today for speed

Why is that?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2009,09:56   

Quote
i just speculate


say it ain't so!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2009,10:29   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Dec. 19 2009,04:06)
Quote (Badger3k @ Dec. 17 2009,17:13)
I'm curious as to why being marsupial is necessary for the rapid reproduction Robert seems to think had to occur.  Did the rest of the world, including all those places further away from (wherever Noah's Ark is supposed to be), not need animals to reproduce incredibly fast (poor females - were they in the quiverfull movement too?) - in other words, being an egg-laying bird or reptile, or being a placental mammal, was good enough for other places, why was it not good enough for Australia?

Why aren't the marsupials dominant in the Americas, since we have some, if their reproduction was so incredibly fast?  

Is this all part of the Grand Plan of YHVH?

(ps - if I wasn't at work, I could link to the Onion article on YHVH creating the world, again, while the Sumerians were trying to get their work done.  Pretty funny, and on target for those who think the world was created, and flooded, while other civilizations went on about their daily business.

Again this is about mechanism. Marsupials were in great diversity in south America actually. i just speculate it was because the rapid colonization from the Ark demanded a steady but mobile reproduction. the whole point of marsupialism is to get the fetus out of the womb and get another growing. Speed was everything. then later it just stays in that shift. There is no need today for speed and so its slowed down but the proceadure is the same.
This is speculation and not conclusion based on the anatomical bodies of fossil and living marsupials in the literature.
Plus biblical boundaries leading the way.

While looking for a note on marsupial reproduction, I ran into this (http://www.nwcreation.net/marsupials.html) - is this yours (if so, it seems much better written than you write here) or did someone else have this idea?

Anyway, the point I was going to get is that even while the baby is growing in the pouch, to the best of my knowledge marsupials don't get pregnant again.  I know you claim this is because they don't need it that way now (got evidence?), but you completely ignored why the placentals did not need this uber-fast reproduction, since they had to repopulate a much larger proportion of the planet.  Why did they not need to do this?  

Plus, since I can't find the marsupial reproduction passage in the bible, perhaps you can point out chapter and verse on these "biblical boundaries."

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2009,10:31   

Not sure who "Chris Ashcroft" is, but I did recognize that idiot woodmorappe's name. (from the site I linked to above)

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2009,10:51   

Robert's correct.

I've been to ARKansas which is in the south of America and it's full o' possums.  Chock.  Full.

Can't hardly take a step without getting your foot stuck in a pouch.

Noah was obviously talking about possum when, in the little known Biblical passage, he said to his wife, "Ham, nothin', dem's good eatin'!"

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2009,15:25   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 19 2009,10:51)
Robert's correct.

I've been to ARKansas which is in the south of America and it's full o' possums.  Chock.  Full.

Can't hardly take a step without getting your foot stuck in a pouch.

Noah was obviously talking about possum when, in the little known Biblical passage, he said to his wife, "Ham, nothin', dem's good eatin'!"

Maybe that's the original meaning of "clean" and "unclean" - clean animals had pouches, while unclean didn't - but as the placentals took over (for whatever reason known only to YHVH) they had to change the definition.  I do think I remember our Sunday school lesson that had that "Them's good eatin' " line, but maybe I'm confused.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
  1350 replies since Sep. 08 2009,09:59 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (46) < ... 23 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 33 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]