RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (51) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   
  Topic: forastero's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2011,02:15   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 26 2011,20:28)
Did we break it?

Hey forastero, there's something that WAS more robust in the past... creationists.  These modern guys have no stamina.

...and we're still wondering why you're  avoiding my last big response to your last big response

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2011,02:35   

Quote (rossum @ Oct. 25 2011,15:39)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:10)
No wonder y’all wont try  to explain to me  the origin of the up to 100 different Cambrian phyla.

Some advice.  You really need to check your information before posting here.  We have only identified 13 phyla that were present during the Cambrian, and four of then were also present in the Vendian, before the Cambrian started.

It is possible that a few other phyla were present during the Vendian or Cambrian, it is just that we do not have any fossil record of them -- think small and squishy marine invertebrates that don't fossilize well.

It is worth pointing out that all land plant phyla started after the Cambrian.  Not a lot of ID sites wittering on about the "Cambrian Explosion" tell you about that.  Yet another reason to check your sources carefully.

rossum

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it   Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

And they weren’t “all” squishy invertebrates either. Heck, even fish have been found in the Cambrian

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Zhang, X.-L., Hu, S.-X., Chen, L., Han, J., Zhu, M., Li, Y. and Chen, L.-Z., Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China, Nature 402:42–46, 1999.

Janvier, P., Catching the first fish, Nature 402:21–22, 1999.

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Han, J., Zhang, Z.-F., Yasui, K., Janvier, P., Chen, L., Zhang, X.-L., Liu, J.-N., Li, Y. and Liu, H.-Q., Head and backbone of the Early Cambrian vertebrate Haikouichthys, Nature 421:526–529, 2003.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2011,03:00   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 25 2011,07:41)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 25 2011,13:35)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,07:07)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,05:44)
Forastero,
Please tell me 1 single thing that ID explains that is currently not explained.

If not, then 1 single thing that ID explains more plausibly then is current accepted.

Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted

What's with creationists' inordinate fondness for using "ya" instead of "you" (FL, JoeG, etc.)?  It's almost like it's meant to emphasize the slack-jawed stupidity of the ideas being advanced--as if the standard incompetence in spelling and grammar isn't enough of a clue.

It's:

a) sarcastic arrogance (they think their drivel is the equal of science, thus they themselves in their ignorance are the equal of someone who actually knows what they are talking about)

b) profoundly anti-intellectual (they discount actual knowledge, actual study, actual effort as being unworthy of them or at least worthless because it contradicts them, they thus eschew the trappings of intellectual life, for example by pretending to be "just plain folks").

It's the psychology that underpins this crap that fascinates me the most nowadays.

Louis

History  shows us that many a golden age status quo were not only the most elitists in their propaganda but also usually the most preposterous.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2011,04:21   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,02:35)
Quote (rossum @ Oct. 25 2011,15:39)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:10)
No wonder y’all wont try  to explain to me  the origin of the up to 100 different Cambrian phyla.

Some advice.  You really need to check your information before posting here.  We have only identified 13 phyla that were present during the Cambrian, and four of then were also present in the Vendian, before the Cambrian started.

It is possible that a few other phyla were present during the Vendian or Cambrian, it is just that we do not have any fossil record of them -- think small and squishy marine invertebrates that don't fossilize well.

It is worth pointing out that all land plant phyla started after the Cambrian.  Not a lot of ID sites wittering on about the "Cambrian Explosion" tell you about that.  Yet another reason to check your sources carefully.

rossum

Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it   Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

And they weren’t “all” squishy invertebrates either. Heck, even fish have been found in the Cambrian

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Zhang, X.-L., Hu, S.-X., Chen, L., Han, J., Zhu, M., Li, Y. and Chen, L.-Z., Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China, Nature 402:42–46, 1999.

Janvier, P., Catching the first fish, Nature 402:21–22, 1999.

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Han, J., Zhang, Z.-F., Yasui, K., Janvier, P., Chen, L., Zhang, X.-L., Liu, J.-N., Li, Y. and Liu, H.-Q., Head and backbone of the Early Cambrian vertebrate Haikouichthys, Nature 421:526–529, 2003.

How long did this "explosion" take again? Remind me.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2011,04:26   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,09:00)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 25 2011,07:41)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 25 2011,13:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,07:07)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,05:44)
Forastero,
Please tell me 1 single thing that ID explains that is currently not explained.

If not, then 1 single thing that ID explains more plausibly then is current accepted.

Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted

What's with creationists' inordinate fondness for using "ya" instead of "you" (FL, JoeG, etc.)?  It's almost like it's meant to emphasize the slack-jawed stupidity of the ideas being advanced--as if the standard incompetence in spelling and grammar isn't enough of a clue.

It's:

a) sarcastic arrogance (they think their drivel is the equal of science, thus they themselves in their ignorance are the equal of someone who actually knows what they are talking about)

b) profoundly anti-intellectual (they discount actual knowledge, actual study, actual effort as being unworthy of them or at least worthless because it contradicts them, they thus eschew the trappings of intellectual life, for example by pretending to be "just plain folks").

It's the psychology that underpins this crap that fascinates me the most nowadays.

Louis

History  shows us that many a golden age status quo were not only the most elitists in their propaganda but also usually the most preposterous.

History also shows us that the place is generally littered with morons who gabbled nonsense. And dear old Dame History even goes so far as to show us that your "designer" is hiding in ever smaller cracks, the size of which is inversely proportional to the amount of nonsensical hand waving you dribblers engage in.

Reminder: To wear the mantle of Galileo you must not just be persecuted, you must also be correct. You're not correct, Forastero. So cut it out with the "elitist" drivel. There's a good mockable idiot.

Louis

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2011,04:49   

Quote
In all honesty articles like these just sadden me because they only prove to me how desperately lost so many of you really are.

I find it quite remarkable, here we suddenly have this anonymous guy, superior to generations of scientists. We can only bow to his exquisite intellect and hope for for him to publish "The True Origins of Species" to end all doubt we might have about God of the gaps as the force behind evolution.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
rossum



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2011,06:58   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,02:35)
Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms

A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  For example, I disagree.  I think that, "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," was the original evolution of the first Metazoan, back well before the Cambrian.

Note that plant body forms are not mentioned.  All land plant phyla appeared after the Cambrian.  Why is that?

Note the word "virtually", not all but "virtually all".  Many animal phyla, but not all of them, and no land plant phyla at all appeared in the Cambrian.  Looking at the figures, nine animal phyla and no land plant phyla appeared in the Cambrian, of a total of 45 phyla.  Nine of 45 is 20% of metazoan phyla.  Important, but not overwhelmingly important.

Quote
Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla,

Animal phyla.  Again, your sources are omitting plant phyla.  Ever wonder why your sources are leaving out inconvenient data?

Quote
some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.

And some estimate a lot less.  Where is the evidence to support this estimate?  After all, the people giving the estimates are scientists, and you know that scientists can't be trusted when it comes to evolution and biology.

Quote
as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it   Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

Bwahahaha!  You don't read this stuff before you post it, do you.  1988 is not "recently", it is ancient history for biology.  We hadn't even sequenced the human genome in 1988.  That may be recent for theology, but it isn't recent for biology.

Quote
And they weren’t “all” squishy invertebrates either. Heck, even fish have been found in the Cambrian

The non-fossilised ones were usually squishy.  I wasn't talking about the one that we have fossils for in that sentence.  You might also look at the dates for the Cambrian Explosion and the dates for actual early fish fossils.  We have probable chordates, such as Pikaia, from just after the Cambrian Explosion but no vertebrates.  The vertebrates appear later.

Your creationist/ID sources are supplying you with faulty information.  You really need to double check what they tell you before posting.  Be sure that we will check things if you don't.

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2011,07:36   

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 01 2011,05:49)
Quote
In all honesty articles like these just sadden me because they only prove to me how desperately lost so many of you really are.

I find it quite remarkable, here we suddenly have this anonymous guy, superior to generations of scientists. We can only bow to his exquisite intellect and hope for for him to publish "The True Origins of Species" to end all doubt we might have about God of the gaps as the force behind evolution.

anonymous hell he can't wait to tell you who he is.

aint that right sugar dumplin?  self made man and all that?  self taught, autodidactor, is that about it?

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2011,08:40   

I just wanted to mention the following quotes,
I'm sure there are other examples:

Quote
In fact, a loving creator not only wants to give all life a fair shake but also to live in ecological balance and harmony. Homologies also instill empathy with man.


Quote
In all honesty articles like these just sadden me because they only prove to me how desperately lost so many of you really are.


Bolding mine.

Because this is, of course, all about the "science". Right? {Wink}

Preach that gospel "science", Forastero. Amen, hallelujah and praise be unto Jesus God The Designer Who Could So Totally Be Space Aliens Wink Wink Ixnay On The Odgay.

Stick a fork in this bozo, he's done. Again. Next religious lunatic denying reality please.

Louis

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2011,09:16   

Quote
Plus, this incessant referral to everything found during the so called age of reptiles as reptilian is just one more of the myriad ways that evolutionism retards science. The myriad mammal-like reptiles are actually mammals, many of which can still be found living today. Come to think of it, I bet most Cambrian critters can still be found living today.



Oh, wait, I think I get it now.  Byers, Bozo, and IBIG all got together and are now posting under this nym.

Ecc. i:9-11

eta: That's right. Opabinia is just a baby narwhal, or a very small aquatic elephant. Or something.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2011,23:02   

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,02:35)
Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms

A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  For example, I disagree.  I think that, "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," was the original evolution of the first Metazoan, back well before the Cambrian.

Note that plant body forms are not mentioned.  All land plant phyla appeared after the Cambrian.  Why is that?

Note the word "virtually", not all but "virtually all".  Many animal phyla, but not all of them, and no land plant phyla at all appeared in the Cambrian.  Looking at the figures, nine animal phyla and no land plant phyla appeared in the Cambrian, of a total of 45 phyla.  Nine of 45 is 20% of metazoan phyla.  Important, but not overwhelmingly important.

 
Quote
Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla,

Animal phyla.  Again, your sources are omitting plant phyla.  Ever wonder why your sources are leaving out inconvenient data?

 
Quote
some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.

And some estimate a lot less.  Where is the evidence to support this estimate?  After all, the people giving the estimates are scientists, and you know that scientists can't be trusted when it comes to evolution and biology.

Quote
as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it   Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

Bwahahaha!  You don't read this stuff before you post it, do you.  1988 is not "recently", it is ancient history for biology.  We hadn't even sequenced the human genome in 1988.  That may be recent for theology, but it isn't recent for biology.

Quote
And they weren’t “all” squishy invertebrates either. Heck, even fish have been found in the Cambrian

The non-fossilised ones were usually squishy.  I wasn't talking about the one that we have fossils for in that sentence.  You might also look at the dates for the Cambrian Explosion and the dates for actual early fish fossils.  We have probable chordates, such as Pikaia, from just after the Cambrian Explosion but no vertebrates.  The vertebrates appear later.

Your creationist/ID sources are supplying you with faulty information.  You really need to double check what they tell you before posting.  Be sure that we will check things if you don't.

rossum

because the Cambrian simply represents a benthic environment

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2011,23:24   

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum

In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,02:41   

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 24 2011,18:48)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:41)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:27)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:22)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.

ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..

So it is the creationist meaning of robust that your are referring to and not the scientific meaning then? Because in paleontology and paleoanthropology robust is not a measure of size.

thats so funny its sad

So not to look like the cop out that it is, why dont you provide the "anthropological" definition of robustness

Okay so, had to watch my team lose game four of the world series and then go to work. Here is your definition of robusticity.

You might want to ask yourself why australopithicines come in robust and gracile forms even though they are approximately the same size and body mass.

Yes bone strength is one factor of robusticity but strength correlates with mass, density, nutrients, etc etc
Although I definitely agree that robusticity is very epigenetic, bone density/robusticity has still decreased steadily through time

Secondly,  the robustness in Australopithecines is dealing strictly with their chewing apparatuses. Plus, there was quite a bit of sexual dimorphism with males being much larger and more robust. Interestingly Australopithecines get get shorter stature but more robust chewing apparatus over time. For instance:

A. anamesis supposedly stood between 5 to 6 ft tall, had a very robust skull and chewing apparatus but more human like post cranial than those listed below

A. afarensis stood up to 5 feet tall and had gracile apparatus

A. Aficanus stood up 4.5 ft tall and had gracile chewing apparatus

A. robustus stood up to 4 ft tall and had robust chewing apparatus

Ar. ramidus was about 120 cm 4 foot tall and weighed about 50 kg (110 lbs). The skull and brain are small

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,02:45   

Oops I didnt want to include Ardipithecus ramidus at the bottom

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,03:02   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,17:50)
Oh, and you wanted an example where the modern form is more robust that the primitive form

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

First of all, this represents a very small sample size and there is a lot of disagreement on what kind of human this actually is. Heck, some scientists are actually calling it an Asian Australopithecine. I am of the opinion that its some sort of Negrito that still inhabit areas. It could also be an H. erectus under pressures of Island dwarfism

Anyway, this is a poor example and you havnt at all clarified your stance

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,03:47   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)
Actually you originally did seem to deny it on several occasions but you said you were going to teach me about my original question--how mutations and natural selection create new life or new orders or new genus

but you never do

I deny that the endocrine system can influence phenotype or select phenotype.  You have yet to provide any evidence that this is case.

I was not going to teach you about how mutations and natural selection create new life... because they weren't involved in life to begin with.

I would be happy to educate you on how mutations and natural selection can create new SPECIES and in at least one known case, a new genus.  However, the 'new orders' is another fundamental misunderstanding you have about evolution and biology.

Are you willing to learn?  If you are then, we will have to take some very baby steps, because it is obvious that you have quite a few misunderstandings.

But the question remains, are you willing to learn?  That means reading carefully, that means actually considering new information and being honest.  It also means honestly answering any questions that may come up for you.  To that end, I would like to know where you get your current information from, so that I might best prepare some material to show you the deficiencies in that material.  Are you willing to do this?

You see, I can talk until I'm blue in the face, but unless you are willing to learn, then there isn't any point.  I can only judge your behavior by what I have seen here on this thread, and honestly, so far it is not impressive.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose or not realizing it, but you have been caught in numerous logical fallacies... indeed, almost a textbook argument of the kind creationists use.  Argument by analogy, argument by authority, goalpost-shifting, quote-mining, and that's not to mention the fundamental mistakes in biology, chemistry, and physics so far.  Which, BTW, we have attempted to correct, but you don't seem to be interested in learning.

Just continuing to insist that the Big Bang was an actual explosion of the nuclear or (possibly sub-nuclear) kind shows that you have not even read some of the basics from actual scientists.

Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

From Darwin to Dawkins, evolutionists have always tried to suppress the idea of non-random biological events because it suggested theism. In your own fervor to deny purposeful selection, you have willfully conformed to the dogma of materialistic randomness of super-race Mother Nature Selection   preached to you by the slave trade schools of Anthropology and racists eugenics.

A genotype’s Polyphenisms are the reaction norms that are selected across a range of environments by the very flexible and dynamic endocrine system but in accord to it’s cell’s epigenetic code.  This system selects, regulates, controls, activates, programs, reorginizes, transduces ,disrupts, turns on, turns off, binds to DNA receceptors, modifies nucleotide bases, splices, edits,  transcribes, aquires, learns, memorizes, Imprints, methylates, demethylates, canalises, deacylates, acetylates etc etc etc….

Oh and where did I say the Big Bang was nuclear anything?
I simply gave several examples of how scientists explain it as an explosion

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,04:11   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.

What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,04:58   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,05:24)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum

In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves

How can one be hostile to something one doesn't believe in and to all intents and purposes does not exist outside of the imaginations of various stripes of theists/deists?

Your confusion, incoherence and projection are noted.

Louis

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,04:59   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
ID--superior designer made order from disorder

Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation

ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli

Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche

How long do I have to suffer the shadow boxing, how long will you leave us suspended waiting for the only thing that counts in the real world: Evidence?

A critical analysis of your words shows that you are way off target. From such a bad start, nothing of value may come. You are using a lot of words, from the Big Bang to endocrine systems, but i don't see any relevant evidence.

Evidence consistent with Darwin's theory of variation and natural selection as the force driving evolution of species, the crucial mechanism that has allowed life to adapt to the demands imposed by the huge changes the planet has been undergoing for four billion years - it all adds up to a consistent picture of life as it is.

There are so many aspects of the universe that may look miraculous but we have yet to see even the slightest sign of supernatural intervention.

Again, evidence, please.

I have relied on facts and evidence for the past 70 years of my life and am not going to give up on that because you think faith trumps evidence.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,05:39   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,02:08)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,11:57)
This study might also be of interest: cristal structure of an ancient protein

This is just more pseudoempiricism and circular reasoning. I mean, to resurrect so called ancestral genes, y’all are just implementing modern evolutionism to infer so called primordial evolution in order to infer modern evolutionism.

Yes, refining the theory. Who'd have thunk?

  
rossum



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,07:42   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:02)
because the Cambrian simply represents a benthic environment

And your evidence for land dwelling organisms in the Cambrian is ... ?

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
rossum



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,07:52   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)
In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves

I have no hostility towards design.  I have designed things myself.  I have no hostility towards Jesus, though I think of Him as a Bodhisattva, which might be seen as hostile by some.  As you might have surmised from my avatar, I an Buddhist, and I can assure you that Buddhism has no problems with either evolution or atheism.  Both origins and gods are irrelevant to the goals of Buddhism.

I do have problems with unscientific explanations based on an unevidenced designer, whose proponents will not even put a date on when the designer/s worked.

ID is a political, not a scientific movement.  It has just enough 'scienciness' to make it look scientific to non-scientists and to make it politically plausible.  It does not have enough science to actually qualify as science.

If the designer did design the bacterial flagellum, then when did this event happen, and what evidence do you have to support that date?

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,07:52   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)

In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves

Hey! This must be Rossum!

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,08:11   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.

What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc

Yes yes, therefore ID.

Yawn.

--------------
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: Nov. 02 2011,10:15   

this sombitch is damn near retarded

the cambrian represents a benthic environment

LOL

how would you know, tard?

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,10:36   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum

In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves

I'm sorry; I missed the part where you answered the question.  If you'd be so kind, maybe you could point that part out to me.  Again.  I know I'm being dense.  Thanks.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,10:45   

A lot of claims... no evidence.

Hint: The Daily Mail is NOT a peer-reviewed publication.

Since you have poo-pooed a few of the refutations of our position...

what evidence do you require.

BTW: You STILL haven't talked about your position and evidence for it.

Perhaps you should ask your question of me again.  Since I appear to have forgotten it since you have been gone for over a week.

define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
[strike]Define robust in terms of early man.[/strike]
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man  (The Daily Mail is not peer-reviewed evidence and you have not cited evidence for other claims)
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

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

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

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,13:13   

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,07:52)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)
In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves

I have no hostility towards design.  I have designed things myself.  I have no hostility towards Jesus, though I think of Him as a Bodhisattva, which might be seen as hostile by some.  As you might have surmised from my avatar, I an Buddhist, and I can assure you that Buddhism has no problems with either evolution or atheism.  Both origins and gods are irrelevant to the goals of Buddhism.

I do have problems with unscientific explanations based on an unevidenced designer, whose proponents will not even put a date on when the designer/s worked.

ID is a political, not a scientific movement.  It has just enough 'scienciness' to make it look scientific to non-scientists and to make it politically plausible.  It does not have enough science to actually qualify as science.

If the designer did design the bacterial flagellum, then when did this event happen, and what evidence do you have to support that date?

rossum

According to Buddha, one shouldnt make haughty claims of whats the gods cant and cant do until one reaches a of very high plane of spiritual knowledge. Your passion for the teachings of materialists men over spiritual enlightenment prove that you havnt reached this plane

Yes spiritual because, Buddhism is about leaving the material and becoming one with the demonic goddess in tantric meditation, which leads to many a secret sadomasochisms and was indeed incorporated by the likes of Hitler

The Brahmajala Sutta seems to indicate creationism but maybe you can give us your take on the following
39. "There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the ?bhassara Brahma-world.[7] There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.
40. "But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahm? appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahm?. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.
41. "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahm?, in companionship with him. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.
42. "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahm?, the Great Brahm?, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'
"And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be Brahm?, the Great Brahm?, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here after him.'
43. "Herein, bhikkhus, the being who re-arose there first possesses longer life, greater beauty, and greater authority than the beings who re-arose there after him.
44. "Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has gone forth, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his immediately preceding life, but none previous to that. He speaks thus: 'We were created by him, by Brahm?, the Great Brahm?, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. He is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and he will remain the same just like eternity itself. But we, who have been created by him and have come to this world, are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, doomed to perish.'

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,13:15   

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,07:42)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:02)
because the Cambrian simply represents a benthic environment

And your evidence for land dwelling organisms in the Cambrian is ... ?

rossum

Which ones?

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2011,13:18   

Oh and Buddha would never dismiss texts based on age as Rossum does

  
  1510 replies since Oct. 21 2011,05:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (51) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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