RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: Frontloading--Dumbest Idea Evar?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,13:53   

Quote

Speaking of not answering questions, here's one you've ignored twice: how do you feel about Davison's belief that God has died?


What's the point? Has the question anything to do with darwinism and origin of mammalian orders?  Are we here solving some theological problems?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,14:02   

[scrapped]

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,16:17   

Quote (VMartin @ June 17 2007,13:53)
†  
Quote

Speaking of not answering questions, here's one you've ignored twice: how do you feel about Davison's belief that God has died?


What's the point? Has the question anything to do with darwinism and origin of mammalian orders?

It sure does since for JAD, the adaptive prescribed radiation of mammals is an evidence for God's death.
No kidding.
But we should be the ones asking you the question : how does the radiation of mammals support your view? It's unclear. Is it for the same reason as JAD's (God's death)?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,10:17   

Quote

But we should be the ones asking you the question : how does the radiation of mammals support your view? It's unclear. Is it for the same reason as JAD's (God's death)?



Once the Earth was created there is no need to create it again and again, don't you think? †The same for mammalian Orders - the forces that led to mammalian diversification are not active any more. The evolution is finished. The nature of the forces that led to mammalian diversification is unknown nowadays. Yet they obviously have nothing to do with random mutation and natural selection as darwinists claim. †If they had there would have been no reason why there didn't arise any new mammalian order after Eocene. Because random mutation and natural selection operate according darwinism permanently there should have been evolved some new mammalian orders at least. But they didn't.

Maybe it was prescribed evolutionary process via saltationism, maybe some spiritual forces were taken place and maybe both of them.

John Davison's view as far as I know is that evolution is finished with it's terminal product homo sapiens.

I fully agree.

I will not discuss theological problems with atheists like you. It is wasting time and off topic.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,10:26   

Or, maybe all the evolutionary niches available were filled?  

Hmmm, I see a closed mind.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,10:26   

Quote

I will not discuss theological problems with atheists like you. It is wasting time and off topic.


Why are you afraid to answer the question, V?

Since you seem to routinely attack 'Darwinists' for their atheism, it seems to me that a bizarre theological statement like Davison's should be quite relevant.

If you don't want to discuss 'theological problems' with Darwinists, then you have no right to bitch about Darwinists being atheists.

So, V, try again.


Also, don't ignore these questions, either:

Quote
So, what are transitional fossils then?

If you have no experiments that show such that your position is correct why do you adhere to it?


--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,12:35   

Quote

Or, maybe all the evolutionary niches available were filled? †


Because mammalian orders evolved long before K/T boundary when allegedly majority of species died out your remark seems to be irrelevant to the matter. Only if you presumed that there had been enough empty niches for mammals to evolve among dinos... †

Quote

Hmmm, I see a closed mind.


Why do you look in the mirror?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,12:51   

Hey, V, do you agree with Davison's idea that God is dead?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 4013
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,12:56   

I thought that species were assigned to an order because of the comparatively large amount of difference between them and those put into other orders. That large amount of difference would be expected to take a large amount of time to evolve from their common ancestor.

Henry

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,13:11   

Quote (VMartin @ June 18 2007,12:35)
Quote

Or, maybe all the evolutionary niches available were filled? †


Because mammalian orders evolved long before K/T boundary when allegedly majority of species died out your remark seems to be irrelevant to the matter. Only if you presumed that there had been enough empty niches for mammals to evolve among dinos... †

 
Quote

Hmmm, I see a closed mind.


Why do you look in the mirror?

VMartin, how do you test your hypothesis?

Because natural selection is constantly observed, and its role in speciation is essential, but I am not aware of huh... how would you describe it?

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,14:39   

Quote

Because natural selection is constantly observed, and its role in speciation is essential, but I am not aware of huh... how would you describe it?


Natural selection is anti-evolutionary device which only removes extremities from extant species. Its role is conservative.


Otherwise "natural selection" is somehow frozen as well. How would you describe the fact that no mammalian order evolved more than 50 mil. years? Is it really possible that in such huge scale of time with K/T extinction there were really no emptied niches where new mammalian order could evolve?

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,14:45   

Hey, V, I keep asking you! Do you agree with Davison's idea that God is dead?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,15:17   

Quote

Hey, V, I keep asking you! Do you agree with Davison's idea that God is dead?


I have read already your question several times. As you see I don't answer. The question is off topic. But feel free to ask me again.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,15:21   

Quote (VMartin @ June 18 2007,15:17)
Quote

Hey, V, I keep asking you! Do you agree with Davison's idea that God is dead?


I have read already your question several times. As you see I don't answer. The question is irrelevant and off topic. But feel free and ask me again if you like.

intellectual Cowardice.


Hey, If front loading is true, shouldn't early life have more, erm, *cough* CSI than the later stuff?

Also, how did front loading know about the suggested meteorite strike 251 million years ago? Was the meteorite intelligently thrown?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,15:27   

Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,18:14)
"You know...just kinda funny-lookin"

So what you're sayin' is.... whadda you sayin'?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,15:32   

Quote (VMartin @ June 18 2007,14:39)
Natural selection is anti-evolutionary device which only removes extremities from extant species. Its role is conservative.

Am afraid the evidence indicates otherwise. Have you read science lately, or any paper dealing with evolution?
 
Quote

Otherwise "natural selection" is somehow frozen as well. How would you describe the fact that no mammalian order evolved more than 50 mil. years? Is it really possible that in such huge scale of time with K/T extinction there were really no emptied niches where new mammalian order could evolve?

I think you're onto something. I heard that no new empire (bacteria, archea...) appeared in the last billion of years. Sure it means that natural selection has stopped since then.
Joke aside, adpative radiations have occured frequently when some taxa indaved new habitats. We basically now how they work and most of the time they are correlated with peculiar ecological conditions.
Why no new mammalian order appear in the last 50 Myears? No one knows. Does it prove that evolution has stopped? It doesn't since evolution is currently observed. It's not a requirement for the theory to make new mammalian orders appear every Myear.

But I would like to know more precisely about your hypothesis and how you would test (and falsify) it.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,15:36   

Quote (VMartin @ June 18 2007,15:17)
Quote

Hey, V, I keep asking you! Do you agree with Davison's idea that God is dead?


I have read already your question several times. As you see I don't answer. The question is off topic. But feel free to ask me again.

Okay, I'll ask you again, V:

Do you agree with Davison that God has died?

Why do you seem afraid to answer this?

Don't be afraid of going off-topic. It's okay, Steve is quite forgiving about that kind of thing.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,15:39   

Quote (Alan Fox @ June 18 2007,15:27)
Quote (stevestory @ June 10 2007,18:14)
"You know...just kinda funny-lookin"

So what you're sayin' is.... whadda you sayin'?

And I guess that was your accomplice in the woodchipper?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 4013
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,15:49   

Quote
Why no new mammalian order appear in the last 50 Myears? No one knows.


My guess would be that any split occurring since then wouldn't have had time to develop the amount of difference that we associate with orders.

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 4013
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,15:49   

Quote
Also, how did front loading know about the suggested meteorite strike 251 million years ago? Was the meteorite intelligently thrown?


Is this evidence for intelligent falling? :p

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,15:52   

Quote (Henry J @ June 18 2007,15:49)
Quote
Why no new mammalian order appear in the last 50 Myears? No one knows.


My guess would be that any split occurring since then wouldn't have had time to develop the amount of difference that we associate with orders.

Henry

Probably not, since in the fossil record, most of the orders diversified in only a few million years, unless I'm mistaken.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,16:02   

VMartin,

You may not realise this, but the idea of a forum is to exchange ideas, for example by posing and answering questions. It can be quite enlightening if you let yourself get into the spirit of things...

Budem cakat na tvoj navrat

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,16:37   

Quote (Alan Fox @ June 18 2007,16:02)
Budem cakat na tvoj navrat

You need to improve your French, Alan.  ;)
Seriously, was does that mean?

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,01:21   

Quote (jeannot @ June 18 2007,11:37)
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 18 2007,16:02)
Budem cakat na tvoj navrat

You need to improve your French, Alan.  ;)
Seriously, was does that mean?

"I will wait for you to return"  (I hope! I am sure VMartin will correct me if I got it wrong.)

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,07:19   

Why is JAD's mouthpiece here?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,11:03   

Quote
There might have been many independent creations and no common ancestor. I am not sure that sponge and a human has anything common. Their evolutionary ancestors might have been created independently and so no common ancestor of them ever existed.
And the earth might actually be three hours old, I'm sticking with the most parsimonious explanation.
Quote
It is often the case that new organisms showed up "abruptly" without predecessors. The origination of mammalian orders seems to be such a case. Then the evolution slows down and no new "body plan" evolves.
Are you basing that on anything other than an incomplete fossil record?
Quote
In such cases we can presume that an ancestor bear all genetic setup for further evolution. Subsequent evolution only unfolds front-loaded dispositions.
In what form was the information stored before it was unfolded? What stopped it being degraded by mutation before it was used? What signals caused the information to be unfolded? What mechanisms recognised the signals and caused the unfolding of information? How do these mecahnisms explain large changes caused by both large scale rearrangements and single point mutations? Answer those questions and I'll take that theory seriously.

Quote
Btw - can you explain me your position? I suppose that also according darwinism life could arose many times in different places too. So maybe according darwinism sponge and human may have no common ancestor either?
Im not sure what you mean by Darwinism here. The modern theory of evolution says that sponge and human do share a common ancestor.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,11:15   

Quote

Okay, I'll ask you again, V:

Do you agree with Davison that God has died?

Why do you seem afraid to answer this?

Don't be afraid of going off-topic. It's okay, Steve is quite forgiving about that kind of thing.


O.K. I believe you - unless you have provoked me. You do not comprehend Davison opinion on the matter. †John Davison opinion is this one:


...It was a rhetorical trick on my part to claim that God or Gods are dead because that is impossible to ascertain with certainty as someone promptly reminded me. I agree.

My point WAS then, and still is NOW, that there is no need for a living God within the postulates of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. The scientist cannot assume the existence of that which cannot be demonstrated. However he can be convinced of such a prior existence which is exactly what the PEH maintains...


I quoted these words from ISCID where everyone can find them, post June 5th 2007:

http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000548-p-14.html

So his claim is different as you thought. He used such words †only as "rhetorical trick". Consequently your question is not expressing the real John's opinion. You should formulate it differently at least.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,11:25   

Quote
So, what are transitional fossils then?

If you have no experiments that show such that your position is correct why do you adhere to it?


--------------
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 Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,11:57   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 19 2007,07:19)
Why is JAD's mouthpiece here?

He hasn't done anything bannable yet.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,12:00   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 19 2007,18:57)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ June 19 2007,07:19)
Why is JAD's mouthpiece here?

He hasn't done anything bannable yet.

Emphasis on the word yet or the word bannable?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
  456 replies since June 10 2007,22:48 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (16) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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