Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: Challenge to Evolutionists started by supersport


Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,22:32

I have a very simple challenge to evolutionists.    

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.  

Please keep in mind that there are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death.    .    .    .    Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE.    

This is my claim. . this is my challenge. . . and this challenge has not yet been answered by anyone.    

Knowing this, it is my opinion that the theory of evolution is little more than a wacky metaphysical belief, much like astrology or palm reading.    

The floor is open!
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,22:39

Who is to judge this challenge, and how do we know he/she is competent in biology?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,22:41

let's see what you got and we'll let the gods decide.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,22:43

So you'll decide, and you have no expertise in biology, is that what you're saying?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,22:48

I don't need to be an expert in biology to know when the challenge has been met.  

Put it this way.....I'll beat you to it....in the following link a flea can generate a new spine for itself in the face of predators:

< http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover >  (pg.2)

"To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."

Perfect example....one problem though: no mutation.

I want you to show me that a mutation can either create a new, selectable part like that or a new modification that meets the criteria in my OP.

So there you have it...we can compare and contrast.

Go for it.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,22:54

Inheritable traits...an IP address in Texas...

is this Davetard?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,22:56

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,22:54)
Inheritable traits...an IP address in Texas...

is this Davetard?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know who that is...no.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,22:57

(that should read 'inheritable changes' or the like)
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,22:59

well while you're thinking..what do you think of this link?

< http://www.junkdna.com/#genes_move_over >

"Genes, move over. Ever since the early 1900s, biologists have thought about heredity primarily in terms of genes. Today, they often view genes as compact, information-laden gems hidden among billions of bases of junk DNA. But genes, it turns out, are neither compact nor uniquely important. According to a painstaking new analysis of 1% of the human genome, genes can be sprawling, with far-flung protein-coding and regulatory regions that overlap with other genes... [One can not help thinking about replacing the concept with FractoGene... - AJP]

Given the traditional gene-centric perspective, that finding "is going to be very disturbing to some people," says John Greally, a molecular biologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. On the other hand, says Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in Bethesda, Maryland, "we're beginning to understand the ground rules by which the genome functions."... [Indeed, alongside the $100 M to continue ENCODE, time is to establish, like the "Theoretical Neuroscience Program" with Neural Networks breaking through by the 1980's an "NIH PostGenetics Study Program" to head for algorithmic "ground rules" for genome functions - AJP]

When Alexandre Reymond, a medical geneticist at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, and his colleagues took a close look at the 400 protein-coding genes contained in ENCODE's target DNA, they found additional exons--the regions that code for amino acids--for more than 80%. Many of these newfound exons were located thousands of bases away from the gene's previously known exons, sometimes hidden in another gene. Moreover, some mRNAs were derived from exons belonging to two genes, a finding, says Reymond, that "underscores that we have still not truly answered the question, 'What is a gene?' " In addition, further extending and blurring gene boundaries, ENCODE uncovered a slew of novel "start sites" for genes--the DNA sequences where transcription begins--many located hundreds of thousands of bases away from the known start sites.


[Those who thought the "ENCODE" only blew away "Junk DNA" see now that not only the "antithesis" was incorrect, but the "Gene" thesis was defective, too. Some of us have put forward "Synthesis" - and a select few in algorithmic, i.e. "software enabling" manner. Synthetic Biology and Protein-based Nanotechnology will not make it without proper "software design" ... - comment by Pellionisz, 22nd of June, 2007]"
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,22:59

Are you offering any prize money? What do we win?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 17 2007,22:59

Hey Sporty, found any YECs willing to pay their own money to radiocarbon date that dinosaur bone yet?  :D  :D  :D  

Or maybe you could explain to us about butterfly wombs.  :D  :D  :D
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,23:06

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:59)
well while you're thinking..what do you think of this link?

< http://www.junkdna.com/#genes_move_over >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think 71,644 words on a single web page might be some kind of record...
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,23:07

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,22:59)
Are you offering any prize money? What do we win?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I once offered a forum a quarter for any such correct answer, but I've decided to take that off the table.  Sorry.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 17 2007,23:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't need to be an expert in biology to know when the challenge has been met.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sooo.... you reject what biologists say, and you have no training in biology, but you're fit to make statements as to whether biologists are right. That about nail it?

Are you the same Supersport who has all those retarded quotes over at Fundies Say the Darnedest Things?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,23:10

So we're supposed to do all the work, for nothing, in hopes you'll learn something?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,23:13

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,23:10)
So we're supposed to do all the work, for nothing, in hopes you'll learn something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well, actually, since you guys are the ones passing this stuff off as fact to school kids, it might be nice to see a little evidence that the mechanism can do as advertised.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,23:14

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 18 2007,00:08)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't need to be an expert in biology to know when the challenge has been met.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sooo.... you reject what biologists say, and you have no training in biology, but you're fit to make statements as to whether biologists are right. That about nail it?

Are you the same Supersport who has all those retarded quotes over at Fundies Say the Darnedest Things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, super, are you this guy?

"Evolutionists prey on the ignorant and gullible. They know the vast majority of the population knows nothing of genetics or molecules or bacteria – so that’s where they go for their so-called “proof” of evolution. They like to hide their proof in dark corners where nobody can see it."

supersport, CARM [Comments (65)] 2007-Mar-11

"[Would you please tell us what your scientific qualifications (for evaluating evolution) are? What is your profession?]

My qualification is I'm a God-fearing college dropout redneck hick landlord who goes after darwinism with freaking vengeance....and I just happen to have the truth on my side."

supersport, Theology Web [Comments (76)] 2007-Jan-28

Well the everyone grab your ticket! The dark side is going to make it that every man, woman and child has free health care. It's not exactly the same, but for me it brings back images of the jews being led towards the death showers in Germany."

supersport, CARM.org [Comments (103)] 2007-Jan-25
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,23:16

in the flesh.....
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,23:16

I've got to agree with him on that last one. Free health care and the Holocaust aren't exactly the same thing...

:p
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,23:18

I was suspicious this guy was Davetard or AFDave, but I think he's not, and I think some people here are going to have a good time.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,23:20

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,23:16)
I've got to agree with him on that last one. Free health care and the Holocaust aren't exactly the same thing...

:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


see, we do have something in common!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 17 2007,23:21

< Looks like the same guy: >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I think it's high time the truth is told about evolutionist-run debate forums. The Richard Dawkins forum is the 3rd atheist/evolutionist forum I have been banned from for absolutely no reason. I will present the evidence here that creationists simply are not welcome at evolutionists' sites....our ideas are not tolerated, and if we step out of line and make too much of a fool of ToE then we simply get exterminated. You think Communism and mind-control only happens in China or North Korea? HA! Just try posting anti-darwinian language at an atheist site and see how long you stick around."

supersport, CARM [Comments (51)] 2007-Aug-22
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
""evolution" is simply changes emerging from within the individual to adapt himself to a changing enviornment. Darwin was wrong, dawkins was wrong, gould was wrong -- I am right."

supersport, RichardDawkins.net [Comments (51)] 2007-Aug-24
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"first of all medicine, like evolutionary science is mostly political. There are very few medicines, if any, that cure anything. Any cures that happen do so because of the body's own ability to repair itself. Care to name me a disease in the past 40 years that's been cured on a widescale basis by medicine?"

supersport , CARM [Comments (52)] 2007-Jul-21
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"No I have no plans to read any more science than I absolutely have to. Science is a sham and does not even come close to explaining anything about reality. I get my wisdom from other sources. Life, including biology, is nonscientific."

SuperSport, CARM [Comments (47)] 2007-Jun-25
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"[after being presented with the fact that genes majorly control one's traits]

wrong... this is so far from fact you don't obviously don't know biology..
"

supersport, CARM Disussion Forums [Comments (33)] 2007-May-11
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"(Supersport explains how animals in the wild never get sick. From three different comments in the thread)

Darwin, why do you think animals in the wild don't get diabetes? Why do they not get alzheimers? Why do they not get MS or or lupus or Depression? Why do they not get cancer? Why is it that dogs and cats start coming down with diseases such as cancer and diabetes only after they are in captivity....only after humans care for them and vaccinate them and give them all kinds of drugs, and processed food?

why is that?

[Mind-boggingly stupid statement. Animals in the wild do get various illnesses, but they don't usually survive long enough for us to find them while they are convalescing in a den or a nest, because they either starve or get eaten. In the wild getting sick is close to a death sentence.]

No they don't. Please show me where animals in the wild get diabetes, for example."

supersport, CARM [Comments (35)] 2007-Apr-08
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Are you sure the vaccine for small pox isn't actually causing smallpox?"

supersport, CARM [Comments (9)] 2007-Mar-26
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Evolutionists are obsessed with skulls. In particular they love sticking thier noses down into rotting skulls with tape measures. Then these self-absorbed thinkers very carefully analyze the shape, size and contour of these skulls because they think they can make judgements on how intelligent someone was based on these measurements and observations. Neanderthals, for instance, despite being genecally 99.9% the same as modern humans, have been labled brutes and savages because they had big skulls with thick bones. Not only that, but some evolutionists say they were unable to even speak, and instead, resorted to making high squeaking noises -- I guess like some sort of dolphin or hyena or something. Of course, it was because they were so darn dumb that us "real" humans supposedly overpowered them and drove them into extinction. Afterall, who wants dumb people around? (This is despite the fact that there's absolutely no evidence of widespread killings or savage murders of Neanderthals.)

Seriously....reading the words of these people is just laughable. Listening to them go on and on about the specific dimensions and sizes of skulls, like these things have anything to do with the intelligence of the individual is just insulting. In fact, I truly do feel insulted for the person who's skull they are sifting through. How would you evolutionists like someone in the future digging through your skull and calling you sub-human or incapable of intelligent thought -- or saying you didn't know how to talk?

But my question to you evolutionists is this: What in the world would make you think that because someone has a different shaped skull that they cannot think as good as you can? And what does size have to do with anything? Evolutionists keep searching for "intermediate" skulls -- skulls that lie somewhere in between an apes' and a humans' for years now.

But if skull size meant anything at all, then why aren't gorillas much more intelligent that we are? And elephants? And hippos? A human is a human is a human. The human brain is a human brain no matter what size it is. You can be a tiny person such as a pygmy or you can be a giant. A giant, despite his large brain, is no more intelligent than a small person.

School kids, even the class dunce, could get this logic -- but evolutionists can't."

supersport, CARM [Comments (24)] 2007-Mar-21
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I, of course, believe God Created the world in 6 days. One of the greatest questions creationists are faced with is how the animals spread out across the world after Noah's ark came to a rest.

Of course nobody knows what happened...but I think with a little investigation, one can put some pieces together that make a little sense.

Is it possible that the world was created much smaller than it is today? Is it possible that there were no oceans? Is it possible that, instead there were "fountains of the deep?" Is it possible that at some point the earth cracked open and these flood waters came pouring out?

Is it possible that the earth grew much like a balloon expands? Is it possible that when the ark came down that the continents were still one land mass, only to separate later?



< http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7592727299684964168 >

"

supersport, CARM [Comments (36)] 2007-Mar-14
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"what's wrong with that statement? You don't think evolutionists scientists have tried to make a human/chimp baby? These people wish to their dirt god that they were chimps -- if they could have a baby with a female chimp they would in a heartbeat."

supersport, CureZone [Comments (44)] 2007-Mar-03
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




...and there's a LOT more where this came from.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,23:22

just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 17 2007,23:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My qualification is I'm a God-fearing college dropout redneck hick landlord who goes after darwinism with freaking vengeance....and I just happen to have the truth on my side."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just wanted to say, when I was spending a lot of time at FSTDT last winter, this was one of my favorite quotes there, esp. the boldfaced part.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,23:24

I can't stop reading that FSTDT page



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"homosexuals should be thrown in jail like in the good ole days....maybe we could let them pick up trash on the side of the road while they're all linked together with chains. At least that way Aids would be confined to prisons as opposed to infecting the rest of society and dragging everyone else down with them."

supersport, CureZone [Comments (40)] 2007-Jan-05
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I mean if modern day humans have been around for tens of thousands of years, then where are all the skyscrapers from years gone by? Where are all the books and artifacts? Where are the planes and cars?"

Supersport, Carm.org Discussion Forums [Comments (50)] 2006-Dec-05
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,23:26

this is like the "This is your life" gameshow in here...cool!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 17 2007,23:26

Supersport does support SOME programs to help poor people:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"In my opinion, if an animal in the wild like a swan is caught being gay it should be shot on sight, disinfected, and used to feed the poor."

supersport, carm [Comments (56)] 2006-Nov-21
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,23:29

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:26)
Supersport does support SOME programs to help poor people:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"In my opinion, if an animal in the wild like a swan is caught being gay it should be shot on sight, disinfected, and used to feed the poor."

supersport, carm [Comments (56)] 2006-Nov-21
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes, that is one of my personal favorites as well.....just trying to help out!
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,23:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"In my opinion, if an animal in the wild like a swan is caught being gay it should be shot on sight, disinfected, and used to feed the poor."

supersport, carm [Comments (56)] 2006-Nov-21


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,23:30

dang your hide Arden Chatfield!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 17 2007,23:31

I couldn't possibly improve on this:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"Maybe it's just me......but does anyone else have the ability to "sense" Satan in other people?

I meet and talk to alot of people in my business. And it doesn't happen too often -- maybe a couple times per year -- but every once in a while I'll come across someone who just gives me the willies -- an eery feeling -- like there's an evil darkness glaring at me from behind their eyes. And they set off an internal fear that just penetrates my soul -- it's a sensation that tells me to run away because the Devil is residing in them. It makes me very nervous.

And it may not be anything in particular that the person does or says to make me feel this....it's more of just an inner gut feeling. I can almost feel a growl or a groan coming out directed at me.

Of course...then again...I could be crazy."

supersport, CARM [Comments (45)] 2006-Sep-21
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Okay, just one more. This is too easy to do:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Oh, trust me, I can debate this with facts......

How is death worshipped by the left? Well first of all they're obseessed with digging up dead bones. They're obsessed with digging up dead monkey bones, dead dinosaur bones etc.

Another form of entertainment is exhuming graves and cemetaries. They love this stuff. They love stealing jewlery off dead corpses.

They're also obsessed with digging through skulls and analyzing corpses with picks and chisels.

They also love dead animals and theories that give glory to a dead, demoralizing past.

Genesis is also habitually scoffed at -- the beautiful story of life -- and they try to wiggle their way out of existence by insisting that we're all random accidents. In their mind they need to play like life didn't actually have a true beginning.

But of course it doesn't stop with the science.....

Have you noticed that the hollywood left is obsessd with making movies and documentarys about slaughter?...and how they have a morbid fascination of suffering? How they make so many movies about bloody war? And people dying? And AIDS? Have you noticed how they turn a blind eye to corrupt leaders who execute their own citizens?

Of course abortion (death to infants) is the sacrament of feminism and liberalism.

And the left is also obsessed with sticking up for people who murder people. -- they want THESE people to live, ironically. No death chamber for killers.

And have you noticed how they'd love to make suicide (death to self) legal?

Have you noticed how the notion of Jesus DEFEATING death makes them ill?"

supersport, IIDB [Comments (45)] 2006-Aug-07
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Dave Scot wishes he was this funny.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 17 2007,23:32

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:29)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:26)
Supersport does support SOME programs to help poor people:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"In my opinion, if an animal in the wild like a swan is caught being gay it should be shot on sight, disinfected, and used to feed the poor."

supersport, carm [Comments (56)] 2006-Nov-21
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes, that is one of my personal favorites as well.....just trying to help out!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Hey mom, what's for dinner?"

(Looks in oven)

"Awww, not gay swan again!"
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 17 2007,23:33

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:07)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,22:59)
Are you offering any prize money? What do we win?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I once offered a forum a quarter for any such correct answer, but I've decided to take that off the table.  Sorry.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can't afford a quarter?



How about some food stamps?

Surely you would pay a dime

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
......to see a little evidence that the mechanism can do as advertised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If it's free it aint worth paying for, isn't that right Cletus?

Still.... I'll offer you a quarter for proof god exists.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,23:37

I like this one too....

"I don't defend what happened to the Indians...then again I don't think anyone knows the full story. If the indians didn't want to get shot they should have got the heck out of there and migrated northward or westward....or maybe head down to Mexco and set their teepees up there. (that's what I would have done.)"

[I]
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Sep. 17 2007,23:37

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,23:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is a gay man's disease. The only way a regular person can catch it is if he/she sleeps with a homo.

Supersport, Christian Forums [Comments (39)] 2006-Nov-05


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And to think of all the money I wasted for condoms at that brothel in Thailand!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 17 2007,23:40

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:37)
I like this one too....

"I don't defend what happened to the Indians...then again I don't think anyone knows the full story. If the indians didn't want to get shot they should have got the heck out of there and migrated northward or westward....or maybe head down to Mexco and set their teepees up there. (that's what I would have done.)"

[I]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, I remember that one! That one is pretty good, I have to admit. Tho if push came to shove, the gay swan one might still get the nod.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 17 2007,23:40

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:37)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that "thirty years" is in there specifically to exclude smallpox and polio.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 17 2007,23:41

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,23:38)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is a gay man's disease. The only way a regular person can catch it is if he/she sleeps with a homo.

Supersport, Christian Forums [Comments (39)] 2006-Nov-05


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And to think of all the money I wasted for condoms at that brothel in Thailand!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you went to a Thai brothel, would that mean you were no longer a 'regular person'?
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Sep. 17 2007,23:43

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:40)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:37)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that "thirty years" is in there specifically to exclude smallpox and polio.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


2007-1977 = 30 years. So it answers the question :p

He probably failed to do his math correctly while setting up his strawman. He should have said within the past 29 years, then he'd be safe.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,23:45

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:40)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:37)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that "thirty years" is in there specifically to exclude smallpox and polio.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well actually, the past 30 years have seen the biggest rise in degnerative diseases -- heart disease, cancer, MS, diabetes, alzheimer's, etc etc......none of which have cures and all of which are killing more and more and more people despite the trillions of dollars being pumped towards Big Medicine.

I acknowledge that some diseases have been controlled or even cured, but nothing new lately...at least nothing that's doing all the killing.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,23:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the weird thing is, I’m not at all convinced that Satan actually believes in the sorry theory he so eagerly promotes. He doesn’t necessarily believe in random mutations – he doesn’t have any real faith in Natural Selection – and he doesn’t truly believe in adaptive radiation. (When’s the last time Satan made a post on here PROMOTING the validity of these things?)
supersport, CARM [Comments (39)] 2006-Sep-21
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 17 2007,23:46

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:43)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:40)
 
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:37)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that "thirty years" is in there specifically to exclude smallpox and polio.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


2007-1977 = 30 years. So it answers the question :p

He probably failed to do his math correctly while setting up his strawman. He should have said within the past 29 years, then he'd be safe.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This appears to be an earlier model of the same challenge:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"first of all medicine, like evolutionary science is mostly political. There are very few medicines, if any, that cure anything. Any cures that happen do so because of the body's own ability to repair itself. Care to name me a disease in the past 40 years that's been cured on a widescale basis by medicine?"

supersport , CARM [Comments (52)] 2007-Jul-21
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 17 2007,23:48

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,23:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the weird thing is, I’m not at all convinced that Satan actually believes in the sorry theory he so eagerly promotes. He doesn’t necessarily believe in random mutations – he doesn’t have any real faith in Natural Selection – and he doesn’t truly believe in adaptive radiation. (When’s the last time Satan made a post on here PROMOTING the validity of these things?)
supersport, CARM [Comments (39)] 2006-Sep-21
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you saying that deep down... Satan is a creationist???
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Sep. 17 2007,23:50

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:40)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:37)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that "thirty years" is in there specifically to exclude smallpox and polio.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well actually, the past 30 years have seen the biggest rise in degnerative diseases [/quote]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is also because populations world wide are aging (because, you know, medicine allows people to live significantly longer than they have before), standards of living are going up while unfortunately activities like proper diet and excercise are being compromised by a more "24" hour world than what things used to be (IE less home cooking, higher rates of obesity). "Curing" something like heart disease is difficult given that these are often conditions caused by aging cells and finding a way to reverse years of damage called by excessive drinking, lack of excercise, poor diet and such is truly ridiculous.

Of course, what you won't acknowledge probably is that treatments for such conditions have got considerably better over the years, which has greatly amended suffering and often the severity of these conditions (but curing is probably not exactly within the realms of possibility).

Really, if you're going to set up a strawman can you at least make an argument that makes sense to go with it first.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,23:51

This about sums it up:

"Neo-darwinism is truly a National disgrace. I do not say this as a cheap attempt at an insult. I say it with all honesty. Satan -- with the help of his little red-headed, mental-terrorist step-child (Charles Darwin) -- has turned this great nation upside-down. A small percentage of atheistic intelligence bandits have somehow managed to manipulate their way into the hearts and minds of the general population.

And this has been done though large-scale, mind-numbing, brainwashing techniques that have convinced a large portion ofAmerica that dumb creatures have evolved into intelligent ones. They have succeeded in convincing many that a tricycle can evolve into the space shuttle through blind and purposeless mutations guided by the mere notion that animals actually breed and have offspring. They have dumbed-down
society to the point where many people actually believe this stuff....people actually believe that the only differences between sweaty, bug-picking monkeys and humans are short arms and opposable thumbs. They think the difference between a hippo and a dolphin is just a series of random mutations that reshape the body. Little gets mentioned about how and where a dolphin's sonar came from."
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 17 2007,23:53

Okay, none of you will top this one:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"And here’s the magic of life as I see it: Since life is a verb, I find it interesting that faith is also a verb."

supersport, CARM.org [Comments (45)] 2006-Dec-27
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,23:53

Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:50)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:40)
 
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:37)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that "thirty years" is in there specifically to exclude smallpox and polio.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well actually, the past 30 years have seen the biggest rise in degnerative diseases
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[/quote]
This is also because populations world wide are aging (because, you know, medicine allows people to live significantly longer than they have before), standards of living are going up while unfortunately activities like proper diet and excercise are being compromised by a more "24" hour world than what things used to be (IE less home cooking, higher rates of obesity). "Curing" something like heart disease is difficult given that these are often conditions caused by aging cells and finding a way to reverse years of damage called by excessive drinking, lack of excercise, poor diet and such is truly ridiculous.

Of course, what you won't acknowledge probably is that treatments for such conditions have got considerably better over the years, which has greatly amended suffering and often the severity of these conditions (but curing is probably not exactly within the realms of possibility).

Really, if you're going to set up a strawman can you at least make an argument that makes sense to go with it first.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


actually, if you want to look at reality honestly, you must admit that people are getting these degenerative diseases (such as heart disease, cancer, etc) at younger and younger ages......it's getting worse, not better.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,23:53

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:53)
Okay, none of you will top this one:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"And here’s the magic of life as I see it: Since life is a verb, I find it interesting that faith is also a verb."

supersport, CARM.org [Comments (45)] 2006-Dec-27
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


want me to show you where Lynn Margulis says the same thing?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 17 2007,23:55

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:53)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:53)
Okay, none of you will top this one:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"And here’s the magic of life as I see it: Since life is a verb, I find it interesting that faith is also a verb."

supersport, CARM.org [Comments (45)] 2006-Dec-27
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


want me to show you where Lynn Margulis says the same thing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can I possibly refuse such an offer?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,23:56

Lynn Margulis:

“'What is life?' is a linguistic trap. To answer according to the rules of grammar, we must supply a noun, a thing. But life on Earth is more like a verb. It is a material process, surfing over matter like a slow wave. It is a controlled artistic chaos, a set of chemical reactions so staggeringly complex that more than 4 billion years ago it began a sojourn that now, in human form, composes love letters and uses silicon computers to calculate the temperature of matter at the birth of the universe.”
Posted by: J. O'Donnell on Sep. 17 2007,23:57

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:53)
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:50)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:45)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:40)
 
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:37)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that "thirty years" is in there specifically to exclude smallpox and polio.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well actually, the past 30 years have seen the biggest rise in degnerative diseases
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is also because populations world wide are aging (because, you know, medicine allows people to live significantly longer than they have before), standards of living are going up while unfortunately activities like proper diet and excercise are being compromised by a more "24" hour world than what things used to be (IE less home cooking, higher rates of obesity). "Curing" something like heart disease is difficult given that these are often conditions caused by aging cells and finding a way to reverse years of damage called by excessive drinking, lack of excercise, poor diet and such is truly ridiculous.

Of course, what you won't acknowledge probably is that treatments for such conditions have got considerably better over the years, which has greatly amended suffering and often the severity of these conditions (but curing is probably not exactly within the realms of possibility).

Really, if you're going to set up a strawman can you at least make an argument that makes sense to go with it first.[/quote]
actually, if you want to look at reality honestly, you must admit that people are getting these degenerative diseases (such as heart disease, cancer, etc) at younger and younger ages......it's getting worse, not better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only if you completely ignore everything else I actually wrote there and that, in general, the majority of those who get conditions like cancer and heart disease are part of the aging population.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 17 2007,23:58

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,00:51)
A small percentage of atheistic intelligence bandits
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still prefer Church-Burning Ebola Boys.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 17 2007,23:59

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,23:58)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,00:51)
A small percentage of atheistic intelligence bandits
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still prefer Church-Burning Ebola Boys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't say that one..
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 17 2007,23:59

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:56)
Lynn Margulis:

“'What is life?' is a linguistic trap. To answer according to the rules of grammar, we must supply a noun, a thing. But life on Earth is more like a verb. It is a material process, surfing over matter like a slow wave. It is a controlled artistic chaos, a set of chemical reactions so staggeringly complex that more than 4 billion years ago it began a sojourn that now, in human form, composes love letters and uses silicon computers to calculate the temperature of matter at the birth of the universe.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, she's not really saying that 'life' is a verb. And she doesn't even mention 'faith'.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 18 2007,00:00

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:59)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,23:58)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,00:51)
A small percentage of atheistic intelligence bandits
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I still prefer Church-Burning Ebola Boys.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I didn't say that one..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave Scot said it. He raises the bar for all of us.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,00:00

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:59)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:56)
Lynn Margulis:

“'What is life?' is a linguistic trap. To answer according to the rules of grammar, we must supply a noun, a thing. But life on Earth is more like a verb. It is a material process, surfing over matter like a slow wave. It is a controlled artistic chaos, a set of chemical reactions so staggeringly complex that more than 4 billion years ago it began a sojourn that now, in human form, composes love letters and uses silicon computers to calculate the temperature of matter at the birth of the universe.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, she's not really saying that 'life' is a verb. And she doesn't even mention 'faith'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was not claiming "life" was literally a verb...I was using the term figuratively....as was she.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,00:04

so I haven't looked around here much...are there any/many anti-darwinists here?
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 18 2007,00:04

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,00:00)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:59)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:56)
Lynn Margulis:

“'What is life?' is a linguistic trap. To answer according to the rules of grammar, we must supply a noun, a thing. But life on Earth is more like a verb. It is a material process, surfing over matter like a slow wave. It is a controlled artistic chaos, a set of chemical reactions so staggeringly complex that more than 4 billion years ago it began a sojourn that now, in human form, composes love letters and uses silicon computers to calculate the temperature of matter at the birth of the universe.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, she's not really saying that 'life' is a verb. And she doesn't even mention 'faith'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was not claiming "life" was literally a verb...I was using the term figuratively....as was she.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would say that 'life' and 'faith' are in fact both prepositions.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 18 2007,00:06

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,00:04)
so I haven't looked around here much...are there any/many anti-darwinists here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At present Dave "AF Dave" Hawkins is the only one.

For most of a year we had a creationist housewife from Kansas named FTK, but she got banned. We kind of freaked her out.

EDIT: Oh shit, how can I forget VMartin!  He's some kind of weird creationist or something from Eastern Europe. But it's hard to tell where his allegiances really are, between his evasiveness and his bad English. Currently he's only checking in about 2-3 times a week.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,00:08

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 18 2007,00:04)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,00:00)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:59)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:56)
Lynn Margulis:

“'What is life?' is a linguistic trap. To answer according to the rules of grammar, we must supply a noun, a thing. But life on Earth is more like a verb. It is a material process, surfing over matter like a slow wave. It is a controlled artistic chaos, a set of chemical reactions so staggeringly complex that more than 4 billion years ago it began a sojourn that now, in human form, composes love letters and uses silicon computers to calculate the temperature of matter at the birth of the universe.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, she's not really saying that 'life' is a verb. And she doesn't even mention 'faith'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was not claiming "life" was literally a verb...I was using the term figuratively....as was she.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would say that 'life' and 'faith' are in fact both prepositions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


to me, "life" is a state of being and "faith" is often called an "act of faith"....or "living in faith"...both of which could be claimed to be words of action...at least sort of.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 18 2007,00:20

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,01:04)
so I haven't looked around here much...are there any/many anti-darwinists here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We had a housewife named FtK who argued for about 500 posts. Most of her posts were about why she didn't want to talk. Evasive and boring. A YEC from texas like yourself named AFDave posted about 1500 times before we encouraged him to take his show on the road to Internet Infidels Discussion Board. He still posts on our Bathroom Wall thread.

We've been looking around for other creationists. The problem is, we're an educated crowd. About 100 people here have science degrees, for instance. But we can't find educated creationists. We've got one educated, smart guy who calls himself a creationist but doesn't really oppose evolution, so, that doesn't generate much heat. We're trying to find educated anti-evolutionists. People who are familiar with science's processes and results. It's no fun for us to argue with people who don't really know anything. So far, no luck.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,00:27

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 18 2007,00:20)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,01:04)
so I haven't looked around here much...are there any/many anti-darwinists here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We had a housewife named FtK who argued for about 500 posts. Most of her posts were about why she didn't want to talk. Evasive and boring. A YEC from texas like yourself named AFDave posted about 1500 times before we encouraged him to take his show on the road to Internet Infidels Discussion Board. He still posts on our Bathroom Wall thread.

We've been looking around for other creationists. The problem is, we're an educated crowd. About 100 people here have science degrees, for instance. But we can't find educated creationists. We've got one educated, smart guy who calls himself a creationist but doesn't really oppose evolution, so, that doesn't generate much heat. We're trying to find educated anti-evolutionists. People who are familiar with science's processes and results. It's no fun for us to argue with people who don't really know anything. So far, no luck.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well I don't know if I would meet your criteria or not for "educated."   I don't have a degree in science, but I do some reading on it...or at least I look at the pictures in the books I have....that's worth something, I guess.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,00:28

My philosophy:

When you sit back and look at this whole thing, the debate is so polar opposite it’s almost eery. But I just thought I’d compare and contrast what I consider the most obvious difference in philosophy.

Materialists: believe that lifeforms are evolving upwards from something ugly (bacteria, fungues, etc) by way of a purely physical mechanism…(no thought or intelligence required)

SS: believes that we are devolving downwards from something beautiful (God) by way of the mind or mental processes.

Materiatists: say genes get passed down through the generations.

SS: says the mind gets passed down through the generations.

Materialists: say the genes control the mind

SS: says the mind controls the genes

With this comparison, it is easy to see who the real competitors are: the competition is between the physical actions of genes and the mental/spiritual processes of the mind. It can be no other way. Either information gets squeezed out of the random actions of genes or it gets squeezed out of the purposeful processes of the mind.

Evolutionists give the genome the credit for being the origin of information. I, on the otherhand acknowledge that the genome is a data base of information, but is merely a storage device and does not act as the generator of information. Instead, information’s source is ultimately God, but as we were made in God’s image, information’s source also resides in our minds just like it resides in God’s mind.

We’ve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases. Society is certainly degenerating genetically…this fact alone dispells the notion that we’re in the process of increasing in complexity, as darwinists insist…instead we’re deteriorating, decreasing in complexity. But is the deteriorating genome the source of degeneration? I would say not because I believe the mind and mental processes are in control of the genome…and if this is the case, then the spiritual MIND is ultimately what’s degenerating, which makes the physical genome a follower of degeneration, not a leader. Likewise, with the emergence of new traits, the genome (the storage device) is not the leader, it’s the follower. New traits don’t come from a change in the genome, new traits come from a change in the mind.

This would make sense from a Biblical perspective. Remember how it was that Adam and Eve walked and talked in the Garden with God? I believe Adam and Eve were probably created perfectly and designed to live forever….it was only after sin entered that they Spiritually began to degenerate...and this process continues today.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,02:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This would make sense from a Biblical perspective. Remember how it was that Adam and Eve walked and talked in the Garden with God? I believe Adam and Eve were probably created perfectly and designed to live forever….it was only after sin entered that they Spiritually began to degenerate...and this process continues today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why is it you fundies have such a hangup about sex?

It's like you are trapped permanently in the birth canal.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,02:37

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,00:28)
We’ve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


O'Rlly?

Why don't the "fast breeders" suffer genetic diseases? Bacteria etc? Millions of generations gone past, and yet here they all still are ready to infect your food at the slightest chance.

According to you and Sanford, that's not possible.

Yet here we are. And here they are.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 18 2007,03:32



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Little gets mentioned about how and where a dolphin's sonar came from.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you want to discuss dolphin biosonar, or was that supposed to be a one-off observation?


Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,03:41

I used to have a supersport quote for my MSN name. Something about atheists being evil or somesuch, but it was really aggressive, even more so than the normal "those darn atheist satan worshippers" nonsense.

The man is a legend. Unfortunately, I doubt he thinks it's for the same reasons I do.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 18 2007,05:30

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,23:38)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is a gay man's disease. The only way a regular person can catch it is if he/she sleeps with a homo.

Supersport, Christian Forums [Comments (39)] 2006-Nov-05


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And to think of all the money I wasted for condoms at that brothel in Thailand!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but think of all the money you'll save not having to insist on a clean needle and screened blood at your next transfusion.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,05:56

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,02:37)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,00:28)
We’ve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


O'Rlly?

Why don't the "fast breeders" suffer genetic diseases? Bacteria etc? Millions of generations gone past, and yet here they all still are ready to infect your food at the slightest chance.

According to you and Sanford, that's not possible.

Yet here we are. And here they are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't bother OldMan, you're wasting your time.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,06:52

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 18 2007,02:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This would make sense from a Biblical perspective. Remember how it was that Adam and Eve walked and talked in the Garden with God? I believe Adam and Eve were probably created perfectly and designed to live forever….it was only after sin entered that they Spiritually began to degenerate...and this process continues today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why is it you fundies have such a hangup about sex?

It's like you are trapped permanently in the birth canal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


everyone has hangups with sex....we "fundies" just don't do it with animals and with members of our own gender like others in society.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,06:53

so no one is going to attempt to answer my OP?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,07:00

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,05:56)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,02:37)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,00:28)
We’ve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


O'Rlly?

Why don't the "fast breeders" suffer genetic diseases? Bacteria etc? Millions of generations gone past, and yet here they all still are ready to infect your food at the slightest chance.

According to you and Sanford, that's not possible.

Yet here we are. And here they are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't bother OldMan, you're wasting your time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably diet.....bacteria don't eat an assortment of chemicals, fats, salts, additives, hydrogenated oils, sodas, chips, fries, burgers, onion rings, Cheetos, fruit juice and corn dogs.....we do. Add on top of that exposure to pollution, industrial toxins, city water that's been loaded with fluoride and chlorine, pesticides, and all kinds of other contaminates.  It's causing a wholesale degeneration in the genome.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 18 2007,07:05

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...

unSupersport, you are a tard.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,07:14

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:05)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...

unSupersport, you are a tard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,07:24

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:14)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:05)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...

unSupersport, you are a tard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


whereas you don't have a single shred of evidence that


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
bacteria don't eat an assortment of chemicals, fats, salts, additives, hydrogenated oils, sodas, chips, fries, burgers, onion rings, Cheetos, fruit juice and corn dogs.....we do. Add on top of that exposure to pollution, industrial toxins, city water that's been loaded with fluoride and chlorine, pesticides, and all kinds of other contaminates.  It's causing a wholesale degeneration in the genome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's just a plain assertion.

You believe something yet have no proof.

SS, please tell me how bacteria manage to avoid pollution, industrial toxins, city water etc?

So you appear to be saying where we find pollution we won't find any bacteria?

That appears to be contradicted by



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bacteria found in radioactive waste Hanford. U.S. Scientists studying the soil beneath a leaking Hanford nuclear waste storage tank have discovered more than 100 species of bacteria living in a toxic, radioactive environment that most considered inhospitable to all forms of life. According to a microbial ecologist at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory in Richland, living organisms were even found in some of the most contaminated zones. For most living creatures, the nuclear and chemical waste in the underground storage tanks on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in eastern Washington is the deadliest mixture of toxins and radioactive muck on the planet. For certain bacteria however, the toxic goop left over from decades of nuclear weapons production appears to be a second home.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< Link >

Please explain this. It seems to completely disprove your point 100%.

Now, try again.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,07:30

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:13)
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,23:10)
So we're supposed to do all the work, for nothing, in hopes you'll learn something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well, actually, since you guys are the ones passing this stuff off as fact to school kids, it might be nice to see a little evidence that the mechanism can do as advertised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny, the exact same could apply to the indoctrination generally known as "church".

After all, you pass this stuff of as fact to school kids (Heaven, He11 eternal damnation etc) and it would be nice to see a little evidence that it happens as advertised.

I mean, i'd not want to spend my whole life believing something that turns out to be false, would I SS?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,07:35

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:00)
Probably diet....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh,
"Probably". That old saving grace of creationists everywhere. AFDave's "it could have" springs to mind.

If you had the confidence of your convictions you'd have no need for the "Probably". I mean, if you knew it for a fact you can just state as much. No Probably required.

If you have evidence to back up your claims, you'd state it, no Probably required.

If you are just guessing wildly because you don't really have a clue and need to justify it to yourself, because otherwise where does that leave the rest of your belief system, then yes, you might need to throw in quite a few "Probably".

In fact, I might invest in shares of "Probably", this thread will have more then it's fair share.

SuperSport - Here's a tip. Your answer to my question is a "just so story". Handwaving essentially.

And you say there's no evidence for "evilutionism".

Here's laughing at you, kid.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 18 2007,07:36

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:14)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:05)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...

unSupersport, you are a tard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,08:03

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:36)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:14)
 
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:05)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...

unSupersport, you are a tard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time.  There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.)  Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.  The only question now is when it happened (like that really matters)...but I would say YEC is certainly a possibility since the dinosaurs have been unearthed with soft tissue and proteins in their bones, meaning some of the most "ancient" of earths creatures still have organic material hanging off them.   Also, as far as human evolution goes, there are a grand total of about 200 Neanderthal individuals unearthed, about 25 or so of the so-called "homo erectus" unearthed ---- these people, if they evolved into modern humans would have had to number in the multi, multi millions.......so where the heck are they?  Evos will come back and say that fossilization is rare, and I would agree -- it only happens when it floods or when lots of water is around.  But you guys cannot count evidence that doesn't exist -- and the evidence shows there's simply not enough dead humans in the ground for evolution to have ever dreamed of happening.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,08:09

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:03)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:36)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:14)
 
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:05)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...

unSupersport, you are a tard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time.  There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.)  Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.  The only question now is when it happened (like that really matters)...but I would say YEC is certainly a possibility since the dinosaurs have been unearthed with soft tissue and proteins in their bones, meaning some of the most "ancient" of earths creatures still have organic material hanging off them.   Also, as far as human evolution goes, there are a grand total of about 200 Neanderthal individuals unearthed, about 25 or so of the so-called "homo erectus" unearthed ---- these people, if they evolved into modern humans would have had to number in the multi, multi millions.......so where the heck are they?  Evos will come back and say that fossilization is rare, and I would agree -- it only happens when it floods or when lots of water is around.  But you guys cannot count evidence that doesn't exist -- and the evidence shows there's simply not enough dead humans in the ground for evolution to have ever dreamed of happening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence shows that you have no answer to my point regarding bacteria and toxic environments.

Nice try to handwaive it away 10/10.

Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 18 2007,08:11

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:03)
the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time.  There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.)  Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. That makes perfect sense to me...

Do these guys ever listen to themselves? Basically he is saying that X is impossible, so therefore the equally impossible Y is the only possible answer...
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,08:14

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:09)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:03)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:36)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:14)
   
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:05)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...

unSupersport, you are a tard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time.  There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.)  Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.  The only question now is when it happened (like that really matters)...but I would say YEC is certainly a possibility since the dinosaurs have been unearthed with soft tissue and proteins in their bones, meaning some of the most "ancient" of earths creatures still have organic material hanging off them.   Also, as far as human evolution goes, there are a grand total of about 200 Neanderthal individuals unearthed, about 25 or so of the so-called "homo erectus" unearthed ---- these people, if they evolved into modern humans would have had to number in the multi, multi millions.......so where the heck are they?  Evos will come back and say that fossilization is rare, and I would agree -- it only happens when it floods or when lots of water is around.  But you guys cannot count evidence that doesn't exist -- and the evidence shows there's simply not enough dead humans in the ground for evolution to have ever dreamed of happening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence shows that you have no answer to my point regarding bacteria and toxic environments.

Nice try to handwaive it away 10/10.

Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you have yet to show that they aren't degenerating.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,08:15

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 18 2007,08:11)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:03)
the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time.  There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.)  Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. That makes perfect sense to me...

Do these guys ever listen to themselves? Basically he is saying that X is impossible, so therefore the equally impossible Y is the only possible answer...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not only that but "the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time" can easily be countered by the equally simplistic "the simple fact that lifeforms could have been built up materialistically over time"

No wonder the creationists like "argument by assertion", it's just like reading the bible!

"It's the way it is b'coz gawd says it is, no question".
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,08:17

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 18 2007,08:11)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:03)
the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time.  There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.)  Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. That makes perfect sense to me...

Do these guys ever listen to themselves? Basically he is saying that X is impossible, so therefore the equally impossible Y is the only possible answer...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no I actually gave you a couple reasons, did you actually read my post?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,08:18

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:14)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:09)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:03)
 
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:36)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:14)
   
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:05)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...

unSupersport, you are a tard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time.  There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.)  Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.  The only question now is when it happened (like that really matters)...but I would say YEC is certainly a possibility since the dinosaurs have been unearthed with soft tissue and proteins in their bones, meaning some of the most "ancient" of earths creatures still have organic material hanging off them.   Also, as far as human evolution goes, there are a grand total of about 200 Neanderthal individuals unearthed, about 25 or so of the so-called "homo erectus" unearthed ---- these people, if they evolved into modern humans would have had to number in the multi, multi millions.......so where the heck are they?  Evos will come back and say that fossilization is rare, and I would agree -- it only happens when it floods or when lots of water is around.  But you guys cannot count evidence that doesn't exist -- and the evidence shows there's simply not enough dead humans in the ground for evolution to have ever dreamed of happening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence shows that you have no answer to my point regarding bacteria and toxic environments.

Nice try to handwaive it away 10/10.

Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you have yet to show that they aren't degenerating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Supersport, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?

Sanfords generic entropy puts an upper limit on the number of available reproduction events.

Supersport, I know they are not degenerating because they are still there after the maximum amount of reproductive events Sanford says are available to them.

I ask again, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?

And how many generations does that give us per year?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,08:18

SuperSport: Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,08:21

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:18)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:14)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:09)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:03)
 
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:36)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:14)
     
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:05)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...

unSupersport, you are a tard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time.  There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.)  Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.  The only question now is when it happened (like that really matters)...but I would say YEC is certainly a possibility since the dinosaurs have been unearthed with soft tissue and proteins in their bones, meaning some of the most "ancient" of earths creatures still have organic material hanging off them.   Also, as far as human evolution goes, there are a grand total of about 200 Neanderthal individuals unearthed, about 25 or so of the so-called "homo erectus" unearthed ---- these people, if they evolved into modern humans would have had to number in the multi, multi millions.......so where the heck are they?  Evos will come back and say that fossilization is rare, and I would agree -- it only happens when it floods or when lots of water is around.  But you guys cannot count evidence that doesn't exist -- and the evidence shows there's simply not enough dead humans in the ground for evolution to have ever dreamed of happening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence shows that you have no answer to my point regarding bacteria and toxic environments.

Nice try to handwaive it away 10/10.

Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you have yet to show that they aren't degenerating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Supersport, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?

Sanfords generic entropy puts an upper limit on the number of available reproduction events.

Supersport, I know they are not degenerating because they are still there after the maximum amount of reproductive events Sanford says are available to them.

I ask again, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?

And how many generations does that give us per year?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sorry that doesn't cut it -- if you are going to make an assertion that bacteria aren't degenerating you are going to have to provide proof.  Besides that, degeneration happens in ways that cannot be seen in genes.  For example, many diseases are heritable, thereby degenerating a population, but these diseases cannot be seen in the genome, but in the epigenome.  The degeneration is not with the genes themselves, but in the mental processes that control the genes.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,08:23

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:18)
SuperSport: Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm >

Conventional wisdom among paleontologists states that when dinosaurs died and became fossilized, soft tissues didn't preserve the bones were essentially transformed into "rocks" through a gradual replacement of all organic material by minerals. New research by a North Carolina State University paleontologist, however, could literally turn that theory inside out.


Branching vessels found in bone matrix of T. rex (A) and ostrich (B). (Images courtesy of North Carolina State University)Ads by Google Advertise on this site

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

Dig for Dinos in Montana
Experience a real live dinosaur dig ...discover T-Rex fossils and more.
www.visitmt.com
Dinosaurs Ringtones
Get Walking With Dinosaurs tones Complimentary TV & movie ringtones!
Dinosaurs.ToneTunes4u.com
Dinosaur Wars
Invaders from 65 million years ago Fast-paced, savvy science fiction
Amazon.com/aboutDinosaurWars
Dinosaurs
Fun games for kids to learn about dinosaurs.
FamilyEducation.com
Daily Dinosaur
Visit Everyday to Learn About Your Favorite Dinosaurs FREE
www.DailyDinosaur.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it's still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 18 2007,08:25

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:17)
no I actually gave you a couple reasons, did you actually read my post?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I read it. But even upon re-reading it, I remain convinced that you gave me lots of opinions, and no reasons. Nevertheless, I'm willing to overlook it this time.

Please give me a reason why I should accept this opinion  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please make this some sort of positive evidence from the scientific, peer-reviewed literature, rather than negative evidence such as a criticism of evolutionary theory.

thanks
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,08:30

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 18 2007,08:25)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:17)
no I actually gave you a couple reasons, did you actually read my post?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I read it. But even upon re-reading it, I remain convinced that you gave me lots of opinions, and no reasons. Nevertheless, I'm willing to overlook it this time.

Please give me a reason why I should accept this opinion    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please make this some sort of positive evidence from the scientific, peer-reviewed literature, rather than negative evidence such as a criticism of evolutionary theory.

thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you want evidence from peer review?  That's like going to a church and demanding evidence that God doesn't exist.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,08:31

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:23)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:18)
SuperSport: Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm >

Conventional wisdom among paleontologists states that when dinosaurs died and became fossilized, soft tissues didn't preserve the bones were essentially transformed into "rocks" through a gradual replacement of all organic material by minerals. New research by a North Carolina State University paleontologist, however, could literally turn that theory inside out.


Branching vessels found in bone matrix of T. rex (A) and ostrich (B). (Images courtesy of North Carolina State University)Ads by Google Advertise on this site

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

Dig for Dinos in Montana
Experience a real live dinosaur dig ...discover T-Rex fossils and more.
www.visitmt.com
Dinosaurs Ringtones
Get Walking With Dinosaurs tones Complimentary TV & movie ringtones!
Dinosaurs.ToneTunes4u.com
Dinosaur Wars
Invaders from 65 million years ago Fast-paced, savvy science fiction
Amazon.com/aboutDinosaurWars
Dinosaurs
Fun games for kids to learn about dinosaurs.
FamilyEducation.com
Daily Dinosaur
Visit Everyday to Learn About Your Favorite Dinosaurs FREE
www.DailyDinosaur.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it's still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very good.

Now, last question.

Do you agree or disagree with this quotation from the very article you linked to



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
68-million-year-old dinosaur
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you accept the dino is really 68 million years old?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,08:33

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:31)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:23)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:18)
SuperSport: Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm >

Conventional wisdom among paleontologists states that when dinosaurs died and became fossilized, soft tissues didn't preserve the bones were essentially transformed into "rocks" through a gradual replacement of all organic material by minerals. New research by a North Carolina State University paleontologist, however, could literally turn that theory inside out.


Branching vessels found in bone matrix of T. rex (A) and ostrich (B). (Images courtesy of North Carolina State University)Ads by Google Advertise on this site

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

Dig for Dinos in Montana
Experience a real live dinosaur dig ...discover T-Rex fossils and more.
www.visitmt.com
Dinosaurs Ringtones
Get Walking With Dinosaurs tones Complimentary TV & movie ringtones!
Dinosaurs.ToneTunes4u.com
Dinosaur Wars
Invaders from 65 million years ago Fast-paced, savvy science fiction
Amazon.com/aboutDinosaurWars
Dinosaurs
Fun games for kids to learn about dinosaurs.
FamilyEducation.com
Daily Dinosaur
Visit Everyday to Learn About Your Favorite Dinosaurs FREE
www.DailyDinosaur.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it's still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very good.

Now, last question.

Do you agree or disagree with this quotation from the very article you linked to



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
68-million-year-old dinosaur
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you accept the dino is really 68 million years old?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


maybe 6,800 years old....not 68 million, no.
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 18 2007,08:35

sorry, I missed something here.  Could you go back and expand on "the mental process that controls the genome?"  Not sure what you mean by that.  Also, SS, you really didn't expect to get an answer to your question here, did you?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,08:38

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 18 2007,08:35)
sorry, I missed something here.  Could you go back and expand on "the mental process that controls the genome?"  Not sure what you mean by that.  Also, SS, you really didn't expect to get an answer to your question here, did you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


go back to an earlier page and look for a post entitled "my philosophy"...that should get you started on what I believe.  Ultimately I think the genome is just a physical manifestation of the mind.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,08:39

I expected some sort of an answer -- I wasn't expecting nothing, no.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,08:40

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:21)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:18)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:14)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:09)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:03)
   
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:36)
     
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:14)
       
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:05)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...

unSupersport, you are a tard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time.  There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.)  Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.  The only question now is when it happened (like that really matters)...but I would say YEC is certainly a possibility since the dinosaurs have been unearthed with soft tissue and proteins in their bones, meaning some of the most "ancient" of earths creatures still have organic material hanging off them.   Also, as far as human evolution goes, there are a grand total of about 200 Neanderthal individuals unearthed, about 25 or so of the so-called "homo erectus" unearthed ---- these people, if they evolved into modern humans would have had to number in the multi, multi millions.......so where the heck are they?  Evos will come back and say that fossilization is rare, and I would agree -- it only happens when it floods or when lots of water is around.  But you guys cannot count evidence that doesn't exist -- and the evidence shows there's simply not enough dead humans in the ground for evolution to have ever dreamed of happening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence shows that you have no answer to my point regarding bacteria and toxic environments.

Nice try to handwaive it away 10/10.

Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you have yet to show that they aren't degenerating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Supersport, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?

Sanfords generic entropy puts an upper limit on the number of available reproduction events.

Supersport, I know they are not degenerating because they are still there after the maximum amount of reproductive events Sanford says are available to them.

I ask again, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?

And how many generations does that give us per year?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sorry that doesn't cut it -- if you are going to make an assertion that bacteria aren't degenerating you are going to have to provide proof.  Besides that, degeneration happens in ways that cannot be seen in genes.  For example, many diseases are heritable, thereby degenerating a population, but these diseases cannot be seen in the genome, but in the epigenome.  The degeneration is not with the genes themselves, but in the mental processes that control the genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a simple point and it's telling that you won't plug in the numbers.

a) What are the maximum number of reproduction events available to a bacteria?

b) How long does would it take to reach that number?

c) If the bacteria exist after that number, the Sanford must be wrong - right or wrong?

Here is an example of bacteria reproducing for millions of years. Please point out how these bacteria have degenerated. Please predict when we could expect them to reach the end of the available reproduction events for them.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Scientists descending more than 2 miles into the hot, fractured rocks of a South African gold mine have discovered clans of microbes that have thrived there in total isolation for millions of years.
...
"These bugs come from a formation at least 3 million and probably tens of millions of years old," said biologist Terry Hazen, head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's ecology department and a co-author of the report. "They're living happily down there, remote and secluded, and they have the ability to adapt to anything that comes their way."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://sfgate.com/ >

Now, I think I have reasonably "proven" that these bacteria are not degenerating, as if they were then they've had millions of years to do it and if they were degenerating then iwhy are they still here?

Your contention is that bacteria are degenerating, yet they happily live and reproduce for millions of years. You have been misled.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,08:41

old man...you have NOT proven these bacteria have been around for millions of years....nor have proven there is no degeneration.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,08:43

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:33)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:31)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:23)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:18)
SuperSport: Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm >

Conventional wisdom among paleontologists states that when dinosaurs died and became fossilized, soft tissues didn't preserve the bones were essentially transformed into "rocks" through a gradual replacement of all organic material by minerals. New research by a North Carolina State University paleontologist, however, could literally turn that theory inside out.


Branching vessels found in bone matrix of T. rex (A) and ostrich (B). (Images courtesy of North Carolina State University)Ads by Google Advertise on this site

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

Dig for Dinos in Montana
Experience a real live dinosaur dig ...discover T-Rex fossils and more.
www.visitmt.com
Dinosaurs Ringtones
Get Walking With Dinosaurs tones Complimentary TV & movie ringtones!
Dinosaurs.ToneTunes4u.com
Dinosaur Wars
Invaders from 65 million years ago Fast-paced, savvy science fiction
Amazon.com/aboutDinosaurWars
Dinosaurs
Fun games for kids to learn about dinosaurs.
FamilyEducation.com
Daily Dinosaur
Visit Everyday to Learn About Your Favorite Dinosaurs FREE
www.DailyDinosaur.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it's still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very good.

Now, last question.

Do you agree or disagree with this quotation from the very article you linked to

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
68-million-year-old dinosaur
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you accept the dino is really 68 million years old?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


maybe 6,800 years old....not 68 million, no.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so you are happy to accept some of the conclusions of a given article (if they tally with your pre-existing beliefs) but are happy to reject others if not.

SuperSport, why don't YEC's go out and do some of your own research and then you'd not have to use articles that you can only accept part of.

I mean, why accept the part about the organic matter but reject the part about the age of the bones? What gives? How do you determine what part of a given article to believe, if it's in scripture?

Do you realize how foolish this makes you look?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 18 2007,08:43

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:41)
old man...you have NOT proven these bacteria have been around for millions of years....nor have proven there is no degeneration.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nor have you proven that mental processes poofed life into existence.

So get busy.

thanks
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,08:44

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:41)
old man...you have NOT proven these bacteria have been around for millions of years....nor have proven there is no degeneration.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, but the evidence is on my side.

Tell you what, why don't you "prove" that the bacteria have not been around for millions of years.

Then we'll talk.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,08:46

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:41)
old man...you have NOT proven these bacteria have been around for millions of years....nor have proven there is no degeneration.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Onstott and Pratt said in the report that the volcanic formation where the mine shaft penetrates deeply is nearly 3 billion years old. The water in which the community of microbes lives in rock fractures at the bottom of the shaft, they reported, has been isolated from the Earth's surface for millions of years. The dates are based on analyzing the ratio of noble gases like neon, krypton and argon who the water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What standard of proof do you require? Cracking the rocks open in front of you? Would you believe it then?

You creationists amaze me. You demand "proof" yet are happy to accept the most ridiculous of tales (the ark) just because a man in a funny hat and dress is standing at a pulpit telling you it.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,08:50

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:46)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:41)
old man...you have NOT proven these bacteria have been around for millions of years....nor have proven there is no degeneration.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Onstott and Pratt said in the report that the volcanic formation where the mine shaft penetrates deeply is nearly 3 billion years old. The water in which the community of microbes lives in rock fractures at the bottom of the shaft, they reported, has been isolated from the Earth's surface for millions of years. The dates are based on analyzing the ratio of noble gases like neon, krypton and argon who the water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What standard of proof do you require? Cracking the rocks open in front of you? Would you believe it then?

You creationists amaze me. You demand "proof" yet are happy to accept the most ridiculous of tales (the ark) just because a man in a funny hat and dress is standing at a pulpit telling you it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is actually quite a bit of evidence for a world-wide flood.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,08:52

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:50)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:46)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:41)
old man...you have NOT proven these bacteria have been around for millions of years....nor have proven there is no degeneration.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Onstott and Pratt said in the report that the volcanic formation where the mine shaft penetrates deeply is nearly 3 billion years old. The water in which the community of microbes lives in rock fractures at the bottom of the shaft, they reported, has been isolated from the Earth's surface for millions of years. The dates are based on analyzing the ratio of noble gases like neon, krypton and argon who the water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What standard of proof do you require? Cracking the rocks open in front of you? Would you believe it then?

You creationists amaze me. You demand "proof" yet are happy to accept the most ridiculous of tales (the ark) just because a man in a funny hat and dress is standing at a pulpit telling you it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is actually quite a bit of evidence for a world-wide flood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there was a world wide flood there should be a world-wide sediment layer indicating pre-flood and post-flood boundaries.

Please point to that layer.

As it's "world-wide" there should be no problem pointing it out at innumerable locations.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,08:54

I'm not going into the details this author mentions in his book for evidence of the flood, but he ends his discussion with this comment:

book: Atlantis -- The Antediluvian World by Donnelly

"No one can read these legends and doubt that the Flood was an historical reality.  It is impossible that in two different places in the Old World, remote from each other, religious ceremonies should have been established and perpetuated from age to age in memory of an event which never occurred.  ....It is too much to ask us to believe that Biblical history, Chaldean, Iranian, and Greek legends signify nothing and that even religious pilgrimages and national festivities were based upon myth."  Pg. 79
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,08:56

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:52)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:50)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:46)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:41)
old man...you have NOT proven these bacteria have been around for millions of years....nor have proven there is no degeneration.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Onstott and Pratt said in the report that the volcanic formation where the mine shaft penetrates deeply is nearly 3 billion years old. The water in which the community of microbes lives in rock fractures at the bottom of the shaft, they reported, has been isolated from the Earth's surface for millions of years. The dates are based on analyzing the ratio of noble gases like neon, krypton and argon who the water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What standard of proof do you require? Cracking the rocks open in front of you? Would you believe it then?

You creationists amaze me. You demand "proof" yet are happy to accept the most ridiculous of tales (the ark) just because a man in a funny hat and dress is standing at a pulpit telling you it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is actually quite a bit of evidence for a world-wide flood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there was a world wide flood there should be a world-wide sediment layer indicating pre-flood and post-flood boundaries.

Please point to that layer.

As it's "world-wide" there should be no problem pointing it out at innumerable locations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no there shouldn't.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,08:57

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:54)
I'm not going into the details this author mentions in his book for evidence of the flood, but he ends his discussion with this comment:

book: Atlantis -- The Antediluvian World by Donnelly

"No one can read these legends and doubt that the Flood was an historical reality.  It is impossible that in two different places in the Old World, remote from each other, religious ceremonies should have been established and perpetuated from age to age in memory of an event which never occurred.  ....It is too much to ask us to believe that Biblical history, Chaldean, Iranian, and Greek legends signify nothing and that even religious pilgrimages and national festivities were based upon myth."  Pg. 79
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did not ask you to "go into details".

I asked you (as you are obviously an expert) where the world wide flood boundary can be found in the geological record.

It's not a complex question.

Anybody would think you were deliberately avoiding the question.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,08:58

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:56)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:52)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:50)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:46)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:41)
old man...you have NOT proven these bacteria have been around for millions of years....nor have proven there is no degeneration.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Onstott and Pratt said in the report that the volcanic formation where the mine shaft penetrates deeply is nearly 3 billion years old. The water in which the community of microbes lives in rock fractures at the bottom of the shaft, they reported, has been isolated from the Earth's surface for millions of years. The dates are based on analyzing the ratio of noble gases like neon, krypton and argon who the water.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What standard of proof do you require? Cracking the rocks open in front of you? Would you believe it then?

You creationists amaze me. You demand "proof" yet are happy to accept the most ridiculous of tales (the ark) just because a man in a funny hat and dress is standing at a pulpit telling you it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is actually quite a bit of evidence for a world-wide flood.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there was a world wide flood there should be a world-wide sediment layer indicating pre-flood and post-flood boundaries.

Please point to that layer.

As it's "world-wide" there should be no problem pointing it out at innumerable locations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no there shouldn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"no there shouldn't."? Was that your answer?

To Rephrase:
No, there should not be a problem pointing out where the boundary is

If there's no problem please point it out!
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:00

hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:00

I can also show you fossilized humans were found in the same area as fossilized dinosaurs.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:02

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Changing the subject?

Diamonds are also many millions of years old, yet we find them lying around on the surface.

What's up with that?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:03

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,09:02)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Changing the subject?

Diamonds are also many millions of years old, yet we find them lying around on the surface.

What's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


good point -- yet another contradiction.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,09:04

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've heard about "erosion", right?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,09:04

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:00)
I can also show you fossilized humans were found in the same area as fossilized dinosaurs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same area, no doubt. Same layer? All over the world? I doubt that.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:06

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
I can also show you fossilized humans were found in the same area as fossilized dinosaurs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same area? Same Strata?

Whatever, please bring on the information, links, whatever.

So, just so we're clear Supersport, it's your contention that humans and Dinosaurs existed at the same time in the same places?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:06

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've heard about "erosion", right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


right....so how does encased rock get eroded off bones so that the bones are free and clear of it?  It takes scientists special tools, instruments and chemicals to get rock off bones.....yet you say rain can do it.  Go figure.   You can't count evidence that you can't see.  I see bones laying on the surface......you have no scientific explanation.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:07

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:00)
I can also show you fossilized humans were found in the same area as fossilized dinosaurs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same area, no doubt. Same layer? All over the world? I doubt that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


all over the world?  It just takes one spot, right?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:07

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:03)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,09:02)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Changing the subject?

Diamonds are also many millions of years old, yet we find them lying around on the surface.

What's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


good point -- yet another contradiction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another contradiction in what?

What do you mean?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,09:08

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:06)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've heard about "erosion", right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


right....so how does encased rock get eroded off bones so that the bones are free and clear of it?  It takes scientists special tools, instruments and chemicals to get rock off bones.....yet you say rain can do it.  Go figure.   You can't count evidence that you can't see.  I see bones laying on the surface......you have no scientific explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rain CAN do it.

Are you seriously suggesting rain can't wash earth away similarly or better than tools?

Ye gods.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:08

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,09:06)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
I can also show you fossilized humans were found in the same area as fossilized dinosaurs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same area? Same Strata?

Whatever, please bring on the information, links, whatever.

So, just so we're clear Supersport, it's your contention that humans and Dinosaurs existed at the same time in the same places?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.projectexploration.org/niger2000/11_04_2000.htm >

"“There’s something big over here!” shouted Allison. We gathered around her find, a blackened, fossilized skull fragment more than a foot across. After puzzling over the piece briefly, I declared “It’s a cow, a fossilized cow skull.”

Now what was a fossil cow skull doing in a place like this – an area rich in dinosaur bone more than 100 million years old?


T ime-blackened fossil remains of rhinos, goats, and crocodiles recovered from a floodplain sit on the hood of the Land Rover alongside stone tools and remains of fossilized humans.

More pieces of the puzzle were being picked up by other team members. Dave exclaimed gleefully, “Look, it’s human! Part of the skull!” as he held high the curved plate of bone that shields the massive human brain. He never expected to find fossil humans on a dinosaur expedition."
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:08

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:07)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:00)
I can also show you fossilized humans were found in the same area as fossilized dinosaurs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same area, no doubt. Same layer? All over the world? I doubt that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


all over the world?  It just takes one spot, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bring it on.

In the same vein, if we can show one prediction that the bible makes is 100% wrong, that proves the bible is not true?

It just takes one contradiction right?
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,09:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"No one can read these legends and doubt that the Flood was an historical reality
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Careful child, quoting stories from the imagined history of a post literal world makes your argument look like argumentum ex Hollywood in terms of the history of the Earth. 2500 years ago when Genesis was written compared to the birth of film 100 years ago is an order of magnitude of 10 to the power of 6 compared with the total age of the earth.  

In other words irrelavant.

You not only couldn't pay attention in class you were incapable, isn’t that right sStuporSorter?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,09:10

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:07)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:00)
I can also show you fossilized humans were found in the same area as fossilized dinosaurs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same area, no doubt. Same layer? All over the world? I doubt that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


all over the world?  It just takes one spot, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it was something as bizzare as rabbits in clearly pre-cambrian rock, then yeah.

If it's fossil humans and fossil dino's in one area where there's been a lot of geographical turbulence, not so much.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:12

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:10)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:07)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:00)
I can also show you fossilized humans were found in the same area as fossilized dinosaurs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same area, no doubt. Same layer? All over the world? I doubt that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


all over the world?  It just takes one spot, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it was something as bizzare as rabbits in clearly pre-cambrian rock, then yeah.

If it's fossil humans and fossil dino's in one area where there's been a lot of geographical turbulence, not so much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


there's been geologic turbulence everywhere.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:12

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:08)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,09:06)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
I can also show you fossilized humans were found in the same area as fossilized dinosaurs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same area? Same Strata?

Whatever, please bring on the information, links, whatever.

So, just so we're clear Supersport, it's your contention that humans and Dinosaurs existed at the same time in the same places?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.projectexploration.org/niger2000/11_04_2000.htm >

"“There’s something big over here!” shouted Allison. We gathered around her find, a blackened, fossilized skull fragment more than a foot across. After puzzling over the piece briefly, I declared “It’s a cow, a fossilized cow skull.”

Now what was a fossil cow skull doing in a place like this – an area rich in dinosaur bone more than 100 million years old?


T ime-blackened fossil remains of rhinos, goats, and crocodiles recovered from a floodplain sit on the hood of the Land Rover alongside stone tools and remains of fossilized humans.

More pieces of the puzzle were being picked up by other team members. Dave exclaimed gleefully, “Look, it’s human! Part of the skull!” as he held high the curved plate of bone that shields the massive human brain. He never expected to find fossil humans on a dinosaur expedition."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should have turned to the next page SuperSport. It's all explained
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dinosaurs and humans did not live at the same time. The last of the dinosaurs died out 60 million years before the first modern human ever walked the earth. Paleontologists study ancient life forms, including dinosaurs. Archaeologists, on the other hand, study evidence of ancient humans. While the formal study of these subjects are different, the concurrence of “recent fossils” with dinosaur fossils is not uncommon. Archaeologists have even found tools and jewlery carved out of dinosaur bones.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your "proof" Supersport comes from a non-scientific field trip out to collect bones. Does this sound like a professional expedition?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Soon a pile of bone lay on the hood of one of the Land Rovers. “Put all fossil human pieces here, fish go there. Put non-human mammal finds here.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet again SuperSport, you use an article that flatly contradicts the assertions you are making. You said this article supports your contention that man and dino lived at the same time. Even the article says that that's not true.

Wake up man! If this is the best you've got then give up now.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,09:13

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:06)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've heard about "erosion", right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


right....so how does encased rock get eroded off bones so that the bones are free and clear of it?  It takes scientists special tools, instruments and chemicals to get rock off bones.....yet you say rain can do it.  Go figure.   You can't count evidence that you can't see.  I see bones laying on the surface......you have no scientific explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find amusing that you want a scientific explanation, while you favor Goddidit over scientific facts.
So just to be clear, you also refute all geology?

Is it part of the big conspiracy?

:O
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:14

old man -- that's not an explanation -- that's a belief -- the reality is these bones were found together.  The observable evidence is on my side.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:15

Old Man: "Yet again SuperSport, you use an article that flatly contradicts the assertions you are making. You said this article supports your contention that man and dino lived at the same time. Even the article says that that's not true"

No, reread what I actually did say....I said fossilized human and fossilized dino bones have been found in the same area.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:15

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:12)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:10)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:07)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:00)
I can also show you fossilized humans were found in the same area as fossilized dinosaurs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same area, no doubt. Same layer? All over the world? I doubt that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


all over the world?  It just takes one spot, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it was something as bizzare as rabbits in clearly pre-cambrian rock, then yeah.

If it's fossil humans and fossil dino's in one area where there's been a lot of geographical turbulence, not so much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


there's been geologic turbulence everywhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


except that you cannot point to the flood layer in the geologic record that should exist world-wide according to you. Or did this flood happen without disturbing a single pebble?

It's funny how this "turbulence" only affects that one strata.

What a co-incidence.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,09:16

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:12)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:10)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:07)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:00)
I can also show you fossilized humans were found in the same area as fossilized dinosaurs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Same area, no doubt. Same layer? All over the world? I doubt that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


all over the world?  It just takes one spot, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it was something as bizzare as rabbits in clearly pre-cambrian rock, then yeah.

If it's fossil humans and fossil dino's in one area where there's been a lot of geographical turbulence, not so much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


there's been geologic turbulence everywhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On a minor scale, yeah.

Unless you're talking about the flood? Please tell me how the water got there without boiling all life.

Then tell me how big the ark was, and what animals were on it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:16

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:15)
Old Man: "Yet again SuperSport, you use an article that flatly contradicts the assertions you are making. You said this article supports your contention that man and dino lived at the same time. Even the article says that that's not true"

No, reread what I actually did say....I said fossilized human and fossilized dino bones have been found in the same area.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, a museum also contains fossil human and Dino bones.

You can say of these also that they were "found in the same area".

So what?

What does "finding them in the same area" prove then? That man lived with Dino? Is that what you are saying?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:17

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:13)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:06)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've heard about "erosion", right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


right....so how does encased rock get eroded off bones so that the bones are free and clear of it?  It takes scientists special tools, instruments and chemicals to get rock off bones.....yet you say rain can do it.  Go figure.   You can't count evidence that you can't see.  I see bones laying on the surface......you have no scientific explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find amusing that you want a scientific explanation, while you favor Goddidit over scientific facts.
So just to be clear, you also refute all geology?

Is it part of the big conspiracy?

:O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just don't trust atheists as far as I can throw them.  They'll only "find" evidence that they can manipulate to further their worldview....all the contradictory evidence gets lied about, hidden, or left in the ground.

Geologists are no different than atheists in other areas of science.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:18

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,09:16)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:15)
Old Man: "Yet again SuperSport, you use an article that flatly contradicts the assertions you are making. You said this article supports your contention that man and dino lived at the same time. Even the article says that that's not true"

No, reread what I actually did say....I said fossilized human and fossilized dino bones have been found in the same area.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, a museum also contains fossil human and Dino bones.

You can say of these also that they were "found in the same area".

So what?

What does "finding them in the same area" prove then? That man lived with Dino? Is that what you are saying?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm saying the fact that humans and dinos are found in the same rock, the same strata, and the fact that dinos have soft, organic tissue embedded in their bones proves that they did not, could not have died out millions of years ago.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,09:19

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:17)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:13)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:06)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've heard about "erosion", right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


right....so how does encased rock get eroded off bones so that the bones are free and clear of it?  It takes scientists special tools, instruments and chemicals to get rock off bones.....yet you say rain can do it.  Go figure.   You can't count evidence that you can't see.  I see bones laying on the surface......you have no scientific explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find amusing that you want a scientific explanation, while you favor Goddidit over scientific facts.
So just to be clear, you also refute all geology?

Is it part of the big conspiracy?

:O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just don't trust atheists as far as I can throw them.  They'll only "find" evidence that they can manipulate to further their worldview....all the contradictory evidence gets lied about, hidden, or left in the ground.

Geologists are no different than atheists in other areas of science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. Why don't you trust atheists? What evidence made you think they are liars?

2. What about the religious scientists who accept evolution, such as Wes?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,09:20

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:17)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:13)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:06)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've heard about "erosion", right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


right....so how does encased rock get eroded off bones so that the bones are free and clear of it?  It takes scientists special tools, instruments and chemicals to get rock off bones.....yet you say rain can do it.  Go figure.   You can't count evidence that you can't see.  I see bones laying on the surface......you have no scientific explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find amusing that you want a scientific explanation, while you favor Goddidit over scientific facts.
So just to be clear, you also refute all geology?

Is it part of the big conspiracy?

:O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just don't trust atheists as far as I can throw them.  They'll only "find" evidence that they can manipulate to further their worldview....all the contradictory evidence gets lied about, hidden, or left in the ground.

Geologists are no different than atheists in other areas of science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you know they're lying?
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,09:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I just don't trust atheists as far as I can throw them.  They'll only "find" evidence that they can manipulate to further their worldview....all the contradictory evidence gets lied about, hidden, or left in the ground.

Geologists are no different than atheists in other areas of science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




OH BOOHOOHOO friggen' HOO arsehole get on your white (w)horse and ride out of town to the band playing "march of the clowns"!!!
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:21

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:19)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:17)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:13)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:06)
   
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
     
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've heard about "erosion", right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


right....so how does encased rock get eroded off bones so that the bones are free and clear of it?  It takes scientists special tools, instruments and chemicals to get rock off bones.....yet you say rain can do it.  Go figure.   You can't count evidence that you can't see.  I see bones laying on the surface......you have no scientific explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find amusing that you want a scientific explanation, while you favor Goddidit over scientific facts.
So just to be clear, you also refute all geology?

Is it part of the big conspiracy?

:O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just don't trust atheists as far as I can throw them.  They'll only "find" evidence that they can manipulate to further their worldview....all the contradictory evidence gets lied about, hidden, or left in the ground.

Geologists are no different than atheists in other areas of science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. Why don't you trust atheists? What evidence made you think they are liars?

2. What about the religious scientists who accept evolution, such as Wes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't necessarily call all atheists liars, but their problem is they simply cannot see the truth...consequently, untruths and wild guessing get passed over as reality.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,09:21

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:18)
I'm saying the fact that humans and dinos are found in the same rock, the same strata,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's the paper reporting that?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:22

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:21)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:18)
I'm saying the fact that humans and dinos are found in the same rock, the same strata,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's the paper reporting that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


in the trashcan....
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:22

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:17)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:13)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:06)
   
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've heard about "erosion", right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


right....so how does encased rock get eroded off bones so that the bones are free and clear of it?  It takes scientists special tools, instruments and chemicals to get rock off bones.....yet you say rain can do it.  Go figure.   You can't count evidence that you can't see.  I see bones laying on the surface......you have no scientific explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find amusing that you want a scientific explanation, while you favor Goddidit over scientific facts.
So just to be clear, you also refute all geology?

Is it part of the big conspiracy?

:O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just don't trust atheists as far as I can throw them.  They'll only "find" evidence that they can manipulate to further their worldview....all the contradictory evidence gets lied about, hidden, or left in the ground.

Geologists are no different than atheists in other areas of science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that why all the early geologists were in fact creationists out to provide proof for a young earth, only to realize that the in fact the evidence shows a old old earth

Do you really want to go here SuperSport? Do you really know that little about the history of all this stuff that you'd want to bring up Geologists?

Do a little research next time to avoid looking this foolish.

You did know this about the YEC Geologists right? How they went looking for proof of a young earth?

So, SuperSport, what to talk about creationist Geologists some more? Or are you embarrassed enough now?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:23

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:22)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:21)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:18)
I'm saying the fact that humans and dinos are found in the same rock, the same strata,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's the paper reporting that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


in the trashcan....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ah, you've had a proper look at the site you linked to now huh? Maybe you've realized that "a day trip hunting bones for tourists" is not exactly the sort of scientific evidence that people round here are going to accept?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,09:24

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:20)
How do you know they're lying?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is a very important question, SS. You should try to answer it.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,09:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wouldn't necessarily call all atheists liars, but their problem is they simply cannot see the truth...consequently, lies and untruths and wild guessing get passed over as reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh yeah coming from a guy who has difficulty counting change.......this is EARTH SHATTERING!!!!!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 18 2007,09:25

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,06:52)
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 18 2007,02:30)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This would make sense from a Biblical perspective. Remember how it was that Adam and Eve walked and talked in the Garden with God? I believe Adam and Eve were probably created perfectly and designed to live forever….it was only after sin entered that they Spiritually began to degenerate...and this process continues today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why is it you fundies have such a hangup about sex?

It's like you are trapped permanently in the birth canal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


everyone has hangups with sex....we "fundies" just don't do it with animals and with members of our own gender like others in society.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


..until you get caught.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:26

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:21)
I wouldn't necessarily call all atheists liars, but their problem is they simply cannot see the truth...consequently, untruths and wild guessing get passed over as reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you believe that there are no theist scientists at all?

If we can prove that there are in fact theist scientists who also believe in evolution and a old earth, how do you you explain the consensus regarding "evilution".

If not all scientists are atheists then you can't explain it that way, as much as you might wish you could.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:26

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,09:23)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:22)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:21)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:18)
I'm saying the fact that humans and dinos are found in the same rock, the same strata,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's the paper reporting that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


in the trashcan....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ah, you've had a proper look at the site you linked to now huh? Maybe you've realized that "a day trip hunting bones for tourists" is not exactly the sort of scientific evidence that people round here are going to accept?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the only people who won't accept it are the kooks in science who don't want to accept it.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:28

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,09:26)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:21)
I wouldn't necessarily call all atheists liars, but their problem is they simply cannot see the truth...consequently, untruths and wild guessing get passed over as reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you believe that there are no theist scientists at all?

If we can prove that there are in fact theist scientists who also believe in evolution and a old earth, how do you you explain the consensus regarding "evilution".

If not all scientists are atheists then you can't explain it that way, as much as you might wish you could.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh I have no doubt that there are Christian scientists.....but they are, however, materialists....and materialism often trumps anything and everything.  I think some scientists claim to be Christians on debate forums so they can better fool people (Christians) or lull them into believing that they're getting the truth.

These turkeys don't fool me though.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:29

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:26)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,09:23)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:22)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:21)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:18)
I'm saying the fact that humans and dinos are found in the same rock, the same strata,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where's the paper reporting that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


in the trashcan....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ah, you've had a proper look at the site you linked to now huh? Maybe you've realized that "a day trip hunting bones for tourists" is not exactly the sort of scientific evidence that people round here are going to accept?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the only people who won't accept it are the kooks in science who don't want to accept it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If your "proof" is a simple "here's how we did on our day out bone hunting" story, then are you surprised that it's not been accepted?

Provide some evidence for your position and then you can start to call people "kooks".

Degenerating to name-calling now are we Sport?

"kooks"?

Anyway, everybody "in science"  has accepted "it" years ago. Therefore everybody "in science" is a kook.

Put me in with the kooks if you are the alternative.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:29

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 18 2007,09:25)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,06:52)
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 18 2007,02:30)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This would make sense from a Biblical perspective. Remember how it was that Adam and Eve walked and talked in the Garden with God? I believe Adam and Eve were probably created perfectly and designed to live forever….it was only after sin entered that they Spiritually began to degenerate...and this process continues today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why is it you fundies have such a hangup about sex?

It's like you are trapped permanently in the birth canal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


everyone has hangups with sex....we "fundies" just don't do it with animals and with members of our own gender like others in society.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


..until you get caught.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol...good one.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,09:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
//the only people who won't accept it are the kooks in science who don't want to accept it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ah say .....ah say, boy .......can you you keep the quotable quotes down to one a day you are outgassing AFDAVE there boy!!
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,09:33

Out of curiosity, and not particularly relevant to the thread as a whole.

1. How did you find here super?

2. Do you hate atheists, or do you just think they are wrong? There's a big difference, someone like Wes thinks atheists are, if only with their lack of belief, wrong, but don't hate us.
On the other hand, someone who considers atheists evil, or wicked AS A WHOLE, hates atheists.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,09:33

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,17:29)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 18 2007,09:25)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,06:52)
 
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 18 2007,02:30)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This would make sense from a Biblical perspective. Remember how it was that Adam and Eve walked and talked in the Garden with God? I believe Adam and Eve were probably created perfectly and designed to live forever….it was only after sin entered that they Spiritually began to degenerate...and this process continues today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why is it you fundies have such a hangup about sex?

It's like you are trapped permanently in the birth canal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


everyone has hangups with sex....we "fundies" just don't do it with animals and with members of our own gender like others in society.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


..until you get caught.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol...good one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Take no notice of him spectator sport he's a complete prima donna.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:34

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:29)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 18 2007,09:25)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,06:52)
 
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 18 2007,02:30)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This would make sense from a Biblical perspective. Remember how it was that Adam and Eve walked and talked in the Garden with God? I believe Adam and Eve were probably created perfectly and designed to live forever….it was only after sin entered that they Spiritually began to degenerate...and this process continues today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why is it you fundies have such a hangup about sex?

It's like you are trapped permanently in the birth canal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


everyone has hangups with sex....we "fundies" just don't do it with animals and with members of our own gender like others in society.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


..until you get caught.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lol...good one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


funny thing about all that Sexual stuff is that people like Ted Haggart must not really believe in god at all.

After all, it's not like god's going to "catch" you is it? Ted must have known that god knew what he was up to straight away yet did it anyway.

So, he cannot really believe in god after all. If you did, why would you put in peril your immortal sole for a bit of crack-rock?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:35

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:33)
Out of curiosity, and not particularly relevant to the thread as a whole.

1. How did you find here super?

2. Do you hate atheists, or do you just think they are wrong? There's a big difference, someone like Wes thinks atheists are, if only with their lack of belief, wrong, but don't hate us.
On the other hand, someone who considers atheists evil, or wicked AS A WHOLE, hates atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was browsing over at Brainstorms and saw a mention of this place.  I had never heard of it.  I'm glad I found it though...you guys are a riot.

No, I don't hate atheists....I used to be an unbeliever at one time myself.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 18 2007,09:35

Hi Supersport.

ERVs?

or

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....search= >

have fun!


Ps, are you an engineer?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:36

Super, the next step is to start collecting the Q+A and note

a) the questions you have answered, what the answers were

b) the questions you are ignoring.

It'll make a funny reference document and this forum is well linked to so it'll float to the top of google eventually..

So, stop now or regret it for a long time to come. your dissembling and avoidance will be on display for all comers to see. Is that what you really want?

About those creationist geologists....
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:37

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:33)
Out of curiosity, and not particularly relevant to the thread as a whole.

1. How did you find here super?

2. Do you hate atheists, or do you just think they are wrong? There's a big difference, someone like Wes thinks atheists are, if only with their lack of belief, wrong, but don't hate us.
On the other hand, someone who considers atheists evil, or wicked AS A WHOLE, hates atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was browsing over at Brainstorms and saw a mention of this place.  I had never heard of it.  I'm glad I found it though...you guys are a riot.

No, I don't hate atheists....I used to be an unbeliever at one time myself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you hate those creationist YEC geologists who went out to prove a young earth but returned having proved a old old earth?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:38

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 18 2007,09:35)
Hi Supersport.

ERVs?

or

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....search= >

have fun!


Ps, are you an engineer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that dude would make a great politician, lawyer or used car salesman.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,09:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think some scientists claim to be Christians on debate forums so they can better fool people (Christians) or lull them into believing that they're getting the truth.

These turkeys don't fool me though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Gobble gobble eh? StuporSnort.

quoting oldmanintheskydidntdoit:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
funny thing about all that Sexual stuff is that people like Ted Haggart must not really believe in god at all.

After all, it's not like god's going to "catch" you is it? Ted must have known that god knew what he was up to straight away yet did it anyway.

So, he cannot really believe in god after all. If you did, why would you put in peril your immortal sole for a bit of crack-rock?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Crap oldmanintheskydidntdoit haven't you heard?

GOD'S GAY HE KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING ALL THE TIME.


Sheeeeesh!!!!
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:42

so if chimps and humans are so close genetically, why do we look so different -- and what makes us different?  Have you ever noticed that not one single piece of anatomy looks like the other?  Sure both humans and chimps share the same types of body parts, but none of them look the same at all.....why would this be?  Why would mutations + selection change a creature, yet not change a creature?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,09:43

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:33)
Out of curiosity, and not particularly relevant to the thread as a whole.

1. How did you find here super?

2. Do you hate atheists, or do you just think they are wrong? There's a big difference, someone like Wes thinks atheists are, if only with their lack of belief, wrong, but don't hate us.
On the other hand, someone who considers atheists evil, or wicked AS A WHOLE, hates atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was browsing over at Brainstorms and saw a mention of this place.  I had never heard of it.  I'm glad I found it though...you guys are a riot.

No, I don't hate atheists....I used to be an unbeliever at one time myself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? Is this not you then?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"What happened to the happy-go-lucky, peace-loving athiest? The reality is atheists are dreadfully miserable, foul-mouthed individuals....Truly the pond scum of society
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,09:44

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,17:42)
so if chimps and humans are so close genetically, why do we look so different -- and what makes us different?  Have you ever noticed that not one single piece of anatomy looks like the other?  Sure both humans and chimps share the same types of body parts, but none of them look the same at all.....why would this be?  Why would mutations change a creature, yet not change a creature?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah sorry to be the bearer of bad news SS


BUT NOBODY GIVES A FLYING FUCK WHAT YOU THINK!
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:44

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:43)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:33)
Out of curiosity, and not particularly relevant to the thread as a whole.

1. How did you find here super?

2. Do you hate atheists, or do you just think they are wrong? There's a big difference, someone like Wes thinks atheists are, if only with their lack of belief, wrong, but don't hate us.
On the other hand, someone who considers atheists evil, or wicked AS A WHOLE, hates atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was browsing over at Brainstorms and saw a mention of this place.  I had never heard of it.  I'm glad I found it though...you guys are a riot.

No, I don't hate atheists....I used to be an unbeliever at one time myself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? Is this not you then?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"What happened to the happy-go-lucky, peace-loving athiest? The reality is atheists are dreadfully miserable, foul-mouthed individuals....Truly the pond scum of society
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that doesn't mean I hate them.  I hate science, not people.  That is just an observation.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:45

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 18 2007,09:44)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,17:42)
so if chimps and humans are so close genetically, why do we look so different -- and what makes us different?  Have you ever noticed that not one single piece of anatomy looks like the other?  Sure both humans and chimps share the same types of body parts, but none of them look the same at all.....why would this be?  Why would mutations change a creature, yet not change a creature?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah sorry to be the bearer of bad news SS


BUT NOBODY GIVES A FLYING FUCK WHAT YOU THINK!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


don't wimp out on me intellectually...what makes humans look so different than other primates if our genetic code is so close?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 18 2007,09:45

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:38)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 18 2007,09:35)
Hi Supersport.

ERVs?

or

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....search= >

have fun!


Ps, are you an engineer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that dude would make a great politician, lawyer or used car salesman.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because he's honest and smart?

You were *that* impressed with his content?

Happy to cure you of YEC, SS. Welcome to reality.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,09:47

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:42)
so if chimps and humans are so close genetically, why do we look so different -- and what makes us different?  Have you ever noticed that not one single piece of anatomy looks like the other?  Sure both humans and chimps share the same types of body parts, but none of them look the same at all.....why would this be?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We have our theory, but we'd like to hear yours first.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 18 2007,09:48

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:45)
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 18 2007,09:44)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,17:42)
so if chimps and humans are so close genetically, why do we look so different -- and what makes us different?  Have you ever noticed that not one single piece of anatomy looks like the other?  Sure both humans and chimps share the same types of body parts, but none of them look the same at all.....why would this be?  Why would mutations change a creature, yet not change a creature?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah sorry to be the bearer of bad news SS


BUT NOBODY GIVES A FLYING FUCK WHAT YOU THINK!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


don't wimp out on me intellectually...what makes humans look so different than other primates if our genetic code is so close?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think we're that different at all.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,09:50

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:44)
I hate science...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good to know.

Why are you here?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:50

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 18 2007,09:48)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:45)
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 18 2007,09:44)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,17:42)
so if chimps and humans are so close genetically, why do we look so different -- and what makes us different?  Have you ever noticed that not one single piece of anatomy looks like the other?  Sure both humans and chimps share the same types of body parts, but none of them look the same at all.....why would this be?  Why would mutations change a creature, yet not change a creature?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah sorry to be the bearer of bad news SS


BUT NOBODY GIVES A FLYING FUCK WHAT YOU THINK!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


don't wimp out on me intellectually...what makes humans look so different than other primates if our genetic code is so close?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think we're that different at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


does your face look like a chimp's?  How about your arms, hands, legs, rear end, shoulders, pelvis, spine, knees, etc......mine don't.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,09:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
don't wimp out on me intellectually...what makes humans look so different than other primates if our genetic code is so close?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



HO LEE CRAP

Humans and apes are almost identical vis-à-vis  other mamals. If you don't believe me try warm milk direct from a cows teat and then a human teat and then tell which you prefer if peanuts are not in your reason you are a homo(or very young).
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:52

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 18 2007,09:48)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:45)
 
Quote (k.e @ Sep. 18 2007,09:44)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,17:42)
so if chimps and humans are so close genetically, why do we look so different -- and what makes us different?  Have you ever noticed that not one single piece of anatomy looks like the other?  Sure both humans and chimps share the same types of body parts, but none of them look the same at all.....why would this be?  Why would mutations change a creature, yet not change a creature?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah sorry to be the bearer of bad news SS


BUT NOBODY GIVES A FLYING FUCK WHAT YOU THINK!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


don't wimp out on me intellectually...what makes humans look so different than other primates if our genetic code is so close?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think we're that different at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


does your face look like a chimp's?  How about your arms, hands, legs, rear end, shoulders, pelvis, spine, knees, etc......mine don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's you explanation for the difference?

"God wanted it that way"

Very deep.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,09:52

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:44)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:43)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:35)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:33)
Out of curiosity, and not particularly relevant to the thread as a whole.

1. How did you find here super?

2. Do you hate atheists, or do you just think they are wrong? There's a big difference, someone like Wes thinks atheists are, if only with their lack of belief, wrong, but don't hate us.
On the other hand, someone who considers atheists evil, or wicked AS A WHOLE, hates atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was browsing over at Brainstorms and saw a mention of this place.  I had never heard of it.  I'm glad I found it though...you guys are a riot.

No, I don't hate atheists....I used to be an unbeliever at one time myself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? Is this not you then?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"What happened to the happy-go-lucky, peace-loving athiest? The reality is atheists are dreadfully miserable, foul-mouthed individuals....Truly the pond scum of society
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that doesn't mean I hate them.  I hate science, not people.  That is just an observation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So if I said "All christians are just bigoted scum sucking morons with the capacity for reason and honesty of a particularly twisted whelk" that's not hate?

I don't believe this, by the way.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:53

if anyone needs proof that science is full of kooks, all you have to do is look at a recent article which claim humans became human not because of chance mutation, but because they ate onions and potatoes while other primates didn't.   You people are delusional.

< http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070909184006.htm >

regarding how apes turned into humans:

"That's the big mystery of paleoanthropology," Dominy said. "What changed? Why did our earliest human ancestors deviate from the pattern we see in living apes to evolve this incredibly large brain, which is very energetically expensive to maintain, and to become a much more efficient bipedal organism?"

For years, the answer was thought to be the growing importance of meat in the diet, as early humans learned to hunt. But, Dominy pointed out, "Even when you look at modern human hunter-gatherers, meat is a relatively small fraction of their diet. They cooperate with language, use nets; they have poisoned arrows, even, and still it's not that easy to hunt meat. To think that, two to four million years ago, a small-brained, awkwardly bipedal animal could efficiently acquire meat, even by scavenging, just doesn't make a whole lot of sense."

Some anthropologists have begun to suspect the new source of food consisted of starches, stored by plants in the form of underground tubers and bulbs--wild versions of modern-day foods like carrots, potatoes, and onions"

"Why wait for chance mutations to improve gene function?"
Posted by: guthrie on Sep. 18 2007,09:55

Now now, one at a time.  A new toy lasts longer if you don't all grab it at the corners and start pulling.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,09:56

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:44)
I hate science, not people.  That is just an observation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


what about maths, do you hate maths too?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,09:56

gotta go to work.  Have fun.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,09:59

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:50)
does your face look like a chimp's?  How about your arms, hands, legs, rear end, shoulders, pelvis, spine, knees, etc......mine don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you know that we are genetically closer to chimps than chimps are to gorillas?

And in the same veine, we are more closely related to the lungfish than the lungfish is related to the troot.

Why is that SS? Did God want it that way?


(I should mention to our newbie that English is not my first language, hoping he's not as xenophobic as he's homophobic)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,10:02

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:56)
gotta go to work.  Have fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, well, I doubt we'll be seeing you again.

If you do come back, the same unanswered questions will be here waiting for you.

If I get time i'll wrap them up into a single post you can ignore.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,10:06

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:53)
if anyone needs proof that science is full of kooks, all you have to do is look at a recent article which claim humans became human not because of chance mutation, but because they ate onions and potatoes while other primates didn't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're confusing mutation and selection.
Your ignorance of basic biology is not going to refute any theory, sorry.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,10:08

Quote (guthrie @ Sep. 18 2007,17:55)
Now now, one at a time.  A new toy lasts longer if you don't all grab it at the corners and start pulling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I mean seriuosly rednecks eat roadkill, what's wrong with rationilists eating dogs ?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 18 2007,10:10

Weeee!

A category 3 shitstorm out of the clear blue, with a schizotypal creationist recluse rotating energetically at the core. Where's my shit hat?
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 18 2007,10:13

Too bad.  The effing new guy SuperScum is no fun at all.  All he does is reiterate old creo myths, and he's not as funny as FTK.  He's just as dumb as afdave IMO, so I say we throw him back into the pond, and wait for someone more interesting and educated.

The News Of The Day was ERV blogging about Dembski's pantsing and spanking at OU last night.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 18 2007,10:27

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:35)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:33)
Out of curiosity, and not particularly relevant to the thread as a whole.

1. How did you find here super?

2. Do you hate atheists, or do you just think they are wrong? There's a big difference, someone like Wes thinks atheists are, if only with their lack of belief, wrong, but don't hate us.
On the other hand, someone who considers atheists evil, or wicked AS A WHOLE, hates atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was browsing over at Brainstorms and saw a mention of this place.  I had never heard of it.  I'm glad I found it though...you guys are a riot.

No, I don't hate atheists....I used to be an unbeliever at one time myself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"unbeliever".....tell me what bit of science fact caused you to become a YEC?
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,10:28

I duuno what cave you are reporting from caveman but SputemsWart does nÖt have the intelligence of d.t.

ÏM?ö nothing close to south of the Rïo1fiveZeroGrände.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 18 2007,10:44

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 18 2007,10:10)
Weeee!

A category 3 shitstorm out of the clear blue, with a schizotypal creationist recluse rotating energetically at the core. Where's my shit hat?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK....now that made me laugh!
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 18 2007,11:05

Now THIS is good!  A Senator suing "GOD"!

Good luck collecting from a myth.  What he should be doing is suing all the people perpetuating the myth... like the Pope, Dembksi and FTK.

< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20827350/?GT1=10357[B >
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,11:14

I wish someone would sue spineless invertebrate's
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 18 2007,11:17

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:32)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:29)
   
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:26)
Supersport does support SOME programs to help poor people:

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"In my opinion, if an animal in the wild like a swan is caught being gay it should be shot on sight, disinfected, and used to feed the poor."

supersport, carm [Comments (56)] 2006-Nov-21
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes, that is one of my personal favorites as well.....just trying to help out!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Hey mom, what's for dinner?"

(Looks in oven)

"Awww, not gay swan again!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"And it tastes like Listerine!"

"Don't whine, my little supersport, Listerine is necessary so that the others swans don't catch teh gay.  Besides this is safer than roadkill. Remember when pa was eatin' roadkill and got hit by that truck?"
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,11:24

Ha ha ha (No really Tracy I cracked up...a lot)
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,11:26

Supersport,

Try not to think about the time your pa ate teh gay swan.  Horrible, horrible contagion!

And don't listen to the listerine crap, stay strong.  Remember that no medicine actually works.  Medical science is merely an illusion created by Teh Man!
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,11:31

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,19:26)
Supersport,

Try not to think about the time your pa ate teh gay swan.  Horrible, horrible contagion!

And don't listen to the listerine crap, stay strong.  Remember that no medicine actually works.  Medical science is merely an illusion created by Teh Man!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


thwp thwp thwp pit it out super gay swan sport-o-rito.

NOW

Don't listen to them.

We will give you (non gay)  mouth to mouth ...just to keep you alive for the ctrossT.


Chin up old man...not long to go now... only a fw more miles...to Calgary.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 18 2007,11:31

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:08)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:06)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,09:04)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:00)
hey, old man...if dinosaurs are 100 million years old, why are their bones found on the surface of the ground?....what's up with that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've heard about "erosion", right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


right....so how does encased rock get eroded off bones so that the bones are free and clear of it?  It takes scientists special tools, instruments and chemicals to get rock off bones.....yet you say rain can do it.  Go figure.   You can't count evidence that you can't see.  I see bones laying on the surface......you have no scientific explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Rain CAN do it.

Are you seriously suggesting rain can't wash earth away similarly or better than tools?

Ye gods.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I read that wind can cause erosion.  By supersport thinking, that means rain couldn't have done it!

Another Darwinist contradiction!!!!one!!
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 18 2007,11:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another Darwinist contradiction!!!!one!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



STOP TAHT FILTHY LANGUAGE i THINK i'M FALLING IN DARWINIST LUST.
Posted by: Bob O'H on Sep. 18 2007,11:52

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:45)
Well actually, the past 30 years have seen the biggest rise in degnerative diseases -- heart disease, cancer, MS, diabetes, alzheimer's, etc etc......none of which have cures and all of which are killing more and more and more people despite the trillions of dollars being pumped towards Big Medicine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You missed out stupidity.

Bob
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 18 2007,12:00

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 17 2007,23:24)
I can't stop reading that FSTDT page

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"I mean if modern day humans have been around for tens of thousands of years, then where are all the skyscrapers from years gone by? Where are all the books and artifacts? Where are the planes and cars?"

Supersport, Carm.org Discussion Forums [Comments (50)] 2006-Dec-05
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why didn't Jesus post on the internet?

Blessed are the geek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,13:20

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:21)
I wouldn't necessarily call all atheists liars, but their problem is they simply cannot see the truth...consequently, untruths and wild guessing get passed over as reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As it happens, PZ Myers addresses this over at his blog. < Maybe it's because rocks and critters are more honest than creationists >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've just come back from my introductory biology classroom in which I've been trying hard to convince students of an important historical fact: the scientists, especially the geologists, who came up with the idea that the earth was old were working in a Christian tradition, and they came up with their ideas because they needed to explain the evidence, not because they were driven by theological considerations or because they had been bribed by the Evil Atheist Conspiracy. Sometimes you just have to put them in the shoes of a geologist in 1850 to get them to see the true motives.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's a sign of the degeneracy of the modern creationist that instead of grappling with these questions honestly, as the 19th century creationists/natural historians did, they instead simply deny the existence of the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I like that last line "It's a sign of the degeneracy of the modern creationist". People like SuperSport and slimy Sal just don't get it.

SuperSport, please do tell me how you deal with believers like those Creationist geologists coming up with the exact opposite conclusion that you base your life on?
I mean, I somehow doubt you've gone out and dug down to the "fludde" layer with a shovel. I doubt you've got your hands dirty at all and simply repeat the mantras AIG hand out.

Now, the post I quote of yours says      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
untruths and wild guessing get passed over as reality
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Earlier in this thread you say that you've proof that dino and man lived together. When I disputed that you said:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
old man -- that's not an explanation -- that's a belief -- the reality is these bones were found together.  The observable evidence is on my side.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet the website itself, on the very next page says
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The last of the dinosaurs died out 60 million years before the first modern human ever walked the earth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why don't the people who made the earth shattering discovery that dino and man lived side by side even note it on their own website?

Seems like there is only one dishonest person here. And it's you, supersport.

More likely the type of people you generally deal with supersport don't click on the links you give them.

Y'see you've got to at least dress up your religion in some actual science talk to at least have a chance at passing muster.
Fer Instance
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The most impressive and irrefutable evidence that dinosaurs co-habited the earth with man is found in the book of Job. Evolutionists have never adequately explained the mystifying remarks made by Job, who lived this side of Noah's Flood, where he speaks of "behemoth" and "leviathan" -- two huge creatures, one dwelling in the seas, and one upon the land. YEHOVAH God says to Job, "Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee" -- evidently created at the same time man was (Job 40:15)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example, the first mention of the animal creation refers to such animals. 'God created great whales' (Gen.1:21). The word translated whales in the King James is often translated sea monsters in other versions. In most other passages, however, the word is translated dragons or sometimes serpents. It apparently was meant to identify the animals called a dragon in other nations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://hope-of-israel.org/dinosaur.htm >

I mean, if crazy is your thing, go all the way. Don't hold back now.

BTW, what is it you do for a living Supersport, as you left "for work" earlier. What standards of proof do you hold them too?

"Sorry I'm late"

"LATE?LATE? I challenge you to show me ONE instance of lateness ever documented in the history of this company that has created a new, beneficial, selectable lateness addition to an existing clock orientated part"

"Err. Cup of tea?"
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 18 2007,14:03

I see that the category 3 shitstorm has left the building.

So, sport, when you return, please don't continue to ignore this query, which seems to have disappeared under the deluge of geological claims and counterclaims.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Please give me a reason why I should accept this opinion  
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please make this some sort of positive evidence from the scientific, peer-reviewed literature, rather than negative evidence such as a criticism of evolutionary theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect that if you can actually do this, you will quiet many of your critics here!
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,14:11

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,10:02)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:56)
gotta go to work.  Have fun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure, well, I doubt we'll be seeing you again.

If you do come back, the same unanswered questions will be here waiting for you.

If I get time i'll wrap them up into a single post you can ignore.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ironic since no one has answered OP....or even tried.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,14:18

Hey just for fun...how about someone give me a scientifically-controlled experiment verifying natural selection in animals.  That's a fairytale as well, you know....which makes both RM AND NS fairytales.  Prove me wrong.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 18 2007,14:25

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:18)
Hey just for fun...how about someone give me a scientifically-controlled experiment verifying natural selection in animals.  That's a fairytale as well, you know....which makes both RM AND NS fairytales.  Prove me wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you settle for an enema? Seems more to the point.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,14:27

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 18 2007,14:03)
I see that the category 3 shitstorm has left the building.

So, sport, when you return, please don't continue to ignore this query, which seems to have disappeared under the deluge of geological claims and counterclaims.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Please give me a reason why I should accept this opinion  
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please make this some sort of positive evidence from the scientific, peer-reviewed literature, rather than negative evidence such as a criticism of evolutionary theory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect that if you can actually do this, you will quiet many of your critics here!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


every phenotypic modification and every piece of new morphology stems from mental processes.  For example, and I gave this earlier, a flea can create a new spine for itself in the presence of predators.

< http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover >  (pg.2)

Changes in morphology, thus, must come not from changes in genes, but changes in the mind.   Since this is true, genetic change (aka materialism) does not explain how we got here morphologically......the mind/mental processes do.   But we can't make ourselves...thus, we must have been created by a mind other than our own.  I'm not going to get too much into this because I realize you don't really care to hear it.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,14:38

Interesting, Supersport.

Could you use your own vast mental powers to grow yourself a backbone and answer some questions?

Why or why not?
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,14:40

Surely your mental powers must be greater than that of a flea?  Or is there more informationality in a flea than in a supersport?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 18 2007,15:00

To silence the whining about "nobody has answered the challenge in my opening post", I can pull an old trick from the ID crowd's quiver, i.e. Go Read A Book.  But in this case it will actually answer the challenge.

< Endless Forms Most beautiful, > by Sean Carroll, has several examples of this. One of them is a mutation in the regulatory sequence of a gene that give more pigmentation to a section of a fruit fly wing. Since fruit flies use their wings in mating displays, a change in the pigmentation can have profound effects on mating success. But Carroll describes a phylogenetic tree showing how this mutation occurred, when it occurred, and the resulting speciation events that occurred. So here is an example of what sporty wanted    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now it's your turn, sport. Support this assertion - life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.

Please make this some sort of positive evidence from the scientific, peer-reviewed literature, rather than negative evidence such as a criticism of evolutionary theory.

Your previously cited article from Discover magazine does not do this, BTW. It does represent some serious goalpost shifting; I particularly liked the slippage of "life" to a "spine on a flea". Oh, and another thing, Daphnia are not really fleas. Oh, and another thing, the spine appeared in response to predation, which is not the same thing as "mental processes".

So, read that book by Sean Carroll; it will be good for you. But don't forget to come back here and defend the goalposts you set up originally. Give us an example of positive, scientific evidence for mental processes generating life.

thanks in advance.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,15:06

I have an extra copy of the book, supersport.  Tell me where to send it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,15:10

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,22:32)
I have a very simple challenge to evolutionists.    

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.  

Please keep in mind that there are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death.    .    .    .    Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE.    

This is my claim. . this is my challenge. . . and this challenge has not yet been answered by anyone.    

Knowing this, it is my opinion that the theory of evolution is little more than a wacky metaphysical belief, much like astrology or palm reading.    

The floor is open!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In answer to the OP I submit toes!

However, it seems like you have an answer to everything, judging from the other forums you are infesting.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< SuperSport >: but there's never any beneificial novelty....how could bat sonar form from an animal that didn't have it? How could arms and legs and beaks and feathers and scales and antennas and organs and everything else form from animals that didn't have them? ToE simply has no explanation for the random origin of selectable morphological novelty. Period.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.theologyonline.com/forums....ount=58 >
Seems you like to spread it around. How long were you going to hold back with that blockbuster?

Anyway, horse toes. It's a mutation that alters the physical outward appearance and obviously it's beneficial (I mean that "obviously" in the same way you misuse "probably").

There is lots of good stuff about it, but here

< http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ponyexpress/pony11_1/Pe111.html >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Probably the most well-known atavism is polydactyly of modern horses (photo to right). This condition is similar to the extra toes found in many of the three-toed fossil horses including Archaeohippus, Parahippus, Merychippus and Neohipparion. According to historical records, the prized horses of Alexander the Great (Bucephalos) and Julius Caesar had extra toes. Although Stephen J. Gould discussed polydactyly of horses in his book "Hen's Teeth and Horses Toes" and there are numerous accounts in the scientific literature, in my 40 years of owning horses (I am telling my age now!!) I have only seen this phenomenon once in a yearling Quarter Horse. Various forms of polydactyly are seen in humans usually in association with certain genetic disorders and in the famous six-toed Hemingway cats from Key West, Florida.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An eyewitness account! You hold alot by them, at least when it's then written down, so do you believe yet?  :p

And other good stuff here about exactly what you are asking for in the OP. That do?
< The Branching Bush of Horse Evolution >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Evolution is truly an amazing phenomenon; who would have ever conceived of a small, four-toed animal giving rise to Black Beauty? Our overall conception of “more” being better may even make such a move from four toes to one seem counterintuitive, yet the evidence (from fossils to that of development) is clear in its implications. Horses did not spring up out of the ground from the dust, nor were they “spoken into being” by an omnipotent power that decided that Adam should have a faithful steed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,15:12

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,14:18)
Hey just for fun...how about someone give me a scientifically-controlled experiment verifying natural selection in animals.  That's a fairytale as well, you know....which makes both RM AND NS fairytales.  Prove me wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you tried to look for yourself? I mean really?

You should, it would save us some time.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,15:12

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,14:38)
Interesting, Supersport.

Could you use your own vast mental powers to grow yourself a backbone and answer some questions?

Why or why not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know about a backbone, but amazing things can be accomplished during development.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,15:13

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:12)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,14:38)
Interesting, Supersport.

Could you use your own vast mental powers to grow yourself a backbone and answer some questions?

Why or why not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know about a backbone, but amazing things can be accomplished during development.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


very Zen. Get that from a cracker?

Edit: wAx on?

Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,15:14

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 18 2007,15:00)
To silence the whining about "nobody has answered the challenge in my opening post", I can pull an old trick from the ID crowd's quiver, i.e. Go Read A Book.  But in this case it will actually answer the challenge.

< Endless Forms Most beautiful, > by Sean Carroll, has several examples of this. One of them is a mutation in the regulatory sequence of a gene that give more pigmentation to a section of a fruit fly wing. Since fruit flies use their wings in mating displays, a change in the pigmentation can have profound effects on mating success. But Carroll describes a phylogenetic tree showing how this mutation occurred, when it occurred, and the resulting speciation events that occurred. So here is an example of what sporty wanted        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now it's your turn, sport. Support this assertion - life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.

Please make this some sort of positive evidence from the scientific, peer-reviewed literature, rather than negative evidence such as a criticism of evolutionary theory.

Your previously cited article from Discover magazine does not do this, BTW. It does represent some serious goalpost shifting; I particularly liked the slippage of "life" to a "spine on a flea". Oh, and another thing, Daphnia are not really fleas. Oh, and another thing, the spine appeared in response to predation, which is not the same thing as "mental processes".

So, read that book by Sean Carroll; it will be good for you. But don't forget to come back here and defend the goalposts you set up originally. Give us an example of positive, scientific evidence for mental processes generating life.

thanks in advance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would like a page number or a site on the net explaining this....also, just a bit of a nitpick, I was looking for something that would make the animal more physically selectable because of fitness, not more attractive to the opposite sex.  Attractiveness is a subjective thing, ultimately up to the whims of a female....hardly scientific.

edit: I looked that up...there is no mutation here....the pigmentation comes as a result of a hormone binding to a protein.   The mutation is an inference, not something scientifically verified.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,15:16

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14)
I was looking for something that would make the animal more physically selectable because of fitness, not more attractive to the opposite sex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


???
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,15:17

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:12)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,14:38)
Interesting, Supersport.

Could you use your own vast mental powers to grow yourself a backbone and answer some questions?

Why or why not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know about a backbone, but amazing things can be accomplished during development.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So I'll mark that down as a yes.  We'll be wanting to see it for ourselves, of course.  Is November 6th good for you?  I can be there for an eyewitness account of you growing a backbone through mental process alone.  I can't wait.

Or, you could just answer the question.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,15:19

So, when you are pointed to EXACTLY what you asked for, it turns out that you didn't ask for that in the first place?

Nice.

Anyway, you still miss the point.  You may see the point if you'll take 30 seconds out of your day and define "fitness" for us.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,15:21

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14)
I would like a page number or a site on the net explaining this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Beware, all ye who enter here. >
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,15:24

Well, that's not strictly a "morphological addition to an existing body part", but I have an example in the top of my head: some species of aphids acquired a venom that helps them defend their colonies against predators. The gene duplication responsible for this has been identified.

Keep in mind that all aphids belong to the same "kind", unless there were thousands of them aboard the arch.  ;)
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,15:24

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,15:21)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14)
I would like a page number or a site on the net explaining this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Beware, all ye who enter here. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?  Only 100 citations?

I'm sure you've read all of these, supersport, and deemed them unacceptable?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,15:25

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14)
edit: I looked that up...there is no mutation here....the pigmentation comes as a result of a hormone binding to a protein.   The mutation is an inference, not something scientifically verified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


what's your explanation then?

What's next on the list of options? Or is your view a "science stopper"?

What next SuperSport?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,15:28

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14)
edit: I looked that up...there is no mutation here....the pigmentation comes as a result of a hormone binding to a protein.   The mutation is an inference, not something scientifically verified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The mutation has been identified. I attended Sean Carrol's recent conference in Uppsala. His results are probably published, if not in his book.

And you do know how proteins are produced, don't you?

EDIT: why don't you go finding answers yourself? Go read a book, get a subscription to Nature or Science. There are even several free, top-level journals out there: PLoS Biology, BMC journals (Journal of Biology in particular) and many articles in PNAS are open to non-subscribers.
Do you homework.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,15:29

"Oh, and another thing, the spine appeared in response to predation, which is not the same thing as "mental processes".

  How is it that the environment (predators in this case) can somehow influence a flea to create a new spine without the flea (or his parent) sensing the predator?  What do you think does this sensing?

Fish do this all the time: upon an environmental chnage many fish can change colors on a dime.  Cichlids are notorious for this.  How does this happen without some sort of sensory device to not only ackowledge the new environment, but also to signal the necessary morphological changes?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,15:30

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:28)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14)
edit: I looked that up...there is no mutation here....the pigmentation comes as a result of a hormone binding to a protein.   The mutation is an inference, not something scientifically verified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The mutation has been identified. I attended Sean Carrol's recent conference in Uppsala. His results are probably published, if not in his book.

And you do know how proteins are produced, don't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


show me a link where a mutation was observed, which then altered pigmentation....just curious.  He's vague in his book about this.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,15:32

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:29)
"Oh, and another thing, the spine appeared in response to predation, which is not the same thing as "mental processes".

  How is it that the environment (predators in this case) can somehow influence a flea to create a new spine without the flea (or his parent) sensing the predator?  What do you think does this sensing?

Fish do this all the time: upon an environmental chnage many fish can change colors on a dime.  Cichlids are notorious for this.  How does this happen without some sort of sensory device to not only ackowledge the new environment, but also to signal the necessary morphological changes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What about eggs then?

hOW come they be all different colours like?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 18 2007,15:32

I don't happen to have the book right now; it is on extended loan. Sorry, perhaps FtK, who noted your work approvingly over on her blog, can loan you her copy. I suspect that it is still in the original shrink-wrap...

As for this statement    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I was looking for something that would make the animal more physically selectable because of fitness, not more attractive to the opposite sex.  Attractiveness is a subjective thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It definitely makes the case that you are talking out your ass. Go look up "fitness" in the evolutionary sense. Here are some page numbers

p. 639 in Klug and Cummings, Concepts in Genetics, 7th edition

p. 555 in Griffiths, Gelbart, Miller & Lewontin, Modern Genetic Analysis, 1st edition

whereupon you will learn that Drosophila fitness is intimately related to selection and "attractiveness". Unfortunately, even though you thought you might have to shift that goalpost, you really didn't move it an inch.

Now, about those mental processes generating life instantly - I'm really anxious to hear about that.

thanks again in advance for continuing to ignore this question.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,15:37

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,15:24)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,15:21)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14)
I would like a page number or a site on the net explaining this
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Beware, all ye who enter here. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What?  Only 100 citations?

I'm sure you've read all of these, supersport, and deemed them unacceptable?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no you're going to have to narrow it down and highlight the pertinent words.  I'm not going on a wild goose chase.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,15:37

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:30)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:28)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14)
edit: I looked that up...there is no mutation here....the pigmentation comes as a result of a hormone binding to a protein.   The mutation is an inference, not something scientifically verified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The mutation has been identified. I attended Sean Carrol's recent conference in Uppsala. His results are probably published, if not in his book.

And you do know how proteins are produced, don't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


show me a link where a mutation was observed, which then altered pigmentation....just curious.  He's vague in his book about this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you can do that yourself.

I'm curious too: your think that pigmentation can't be altered by a mutation?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 18 2007,15:37

Would you be interested in some sort of wager SuperSport?

Like to bet do ya? Or does your particular sect consider that to be forbidden?

Not from me, I mean, I don't know nuffink me. Me no scientist. I could paypal a bit of something somebody's way, if it came to it for 1/2 a bottle of something to be sent. You know. And anyway I'm not a betting man. Can't calculate the odds y'see.

Just wondering out loud is all...Putting the idea out there....Somebody takes it, runs with it...Well, not my lookout see?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,15:38

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,15:32)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:29)
"Oh, and another thing, the spine appeared in response to predation, which is not the same thing as "mental processes".

  How is it that the environment (predators in this case) can somehow influence a flea to create a new spine without the flea (or his parent) sensing the predator?  What do you think does this sensing?

Fish do this all the time: upon an environmental chnage many fish can change colors on a dime.  Cichlids are notorious for this.  How does this happen without some sort of sensory device to not only ackowledge the new environment, but also to signal the necessary morphological changes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What about eggs then?

hOW come they be all different colours like?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


show me the mutation....why would the darker (or lighter) be any more selectable than the other?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 18 2007,15:39

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:29)
"Oh, and another thing, the spine appeared in response to predation, which is not the same thing as "mental processes".

  How is it that the environment (predators in this case) can somehow influence a flea to create a new spine without the flea (or his parent) sensing the predator?  What do you .think does this sensing?

Fish do this all the time: upon an environmental chnage many fish can change colors on a dime.  Cichlids are notorious for this.  How does this happen without some sort of sensory device to not only ackowledge the new environment, but also to signal the necessary morphological changes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crikey, you are a serious basket case. Does it make sense to you that mental processes can be involved, but are NOT SUFFICIENT to make things happen? Does it make sense to you that color-changing in fish involves neurological processing, but is NOT sufficient? Do you think that the mind, by itself (i.e. without the fish, or its chromatophores, or the rest of its "materialistic" body) can change color?

You claimed that mental processes generate life instantly. Where is the evidence for that? Put up, or shut up.

Thanks again for ignoring this question.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,15:40

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:37)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:30)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:28)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14)
edit: I looked that up...there is no mutation here....the pigmentation comes as a result of a hormone binding to a protein.   The mutation is an inference, not something scientifically verified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The mutation has been identified. I attended Sean Carrol's recent conference in Uppsala. His results are probably published, if not in his book.

And you do know how proteins are produced, don't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


show me a link where a mutation was observed, which then altered pigmentation....just curious.  He's vague in his book about this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you can do that yourself.

I'm curious too: your think that pigmentation can't be altered by a mutation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the question is whether or not this pigmentation will lead to a more "fit" organism.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,15:42

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 18 2007,15:39)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:29)
"Oh, and another thing, the spine appeared in response to predation, which is not the same thing as "mental processes".

  How is it that the environment (predators in this case) can somehow influence a flea to create a new spine without the flea (or his parent) sensing the predator?  What do you .think does this sensing?

Fish do this all the time: upon an environmental chnage many fish can change colors on a dime.  Cichlids are notorious for this.  How does this happen without some sort of sensory device to not only ackowledge the new environment, but also to signal the necessary morphological changes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crikey, you are a serious basket case. Does it make sense to you that mental processes can be involved, but are NOT SUFFICIENT to make things happen? Does it make sense to you that color-changing in fish involves neurological processing, but is NOT sufficient? Do you think that the mind, by itself (i.e. without the fish, or its chromatophores, or the rest of its "materialistic" body) can change color?

You claimed that mental processes generate life instantly. Where is the evidence for that? Put up, or shut up.

Thanks again for ignoring this question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


blah blah blah...is there a point in there?  Either morphological variation arises accidentally by way of mutations or it doesn't.   You cannot prove that it does, yet I can prove that it doesn't -- which I just did.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,15:48

You PROVED it?  Really?  PROVED it?  With a meticulous set of data and a cast-iron logical process?  Really?  Or did you just claim a bunch of things?  Hmmm?

As to this:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the question is whether or not this pigmentation will lead to a more "fit" organism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I beg to differ.  I believe the question was:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you think that pigmentation can't be altered by a mutation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I can check again--I've got the requisite 2 seconds--but I know I'm right.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,15:48

by the way, the pigmentation thing isn't really what I was asking for.  Any mutation that can increase pigmentation is simply emphasizing what's already there...there is no new morphological addition....ie..new parts.

edit: here's my challenge again:

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.  

Please keep in mind that there are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death.    .    .    .    Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,15:50

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:40)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:37)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:30)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:28)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:14)
edit: I looked that up...there is no mutation here....the pigmentation comes as a result of a hormone binding to a protein.   The mutation is an inference, not something scientifically verified.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The mutation has been identified. I attended Sean Carrol's recent conference in Uppsala. His results are probably published, if not in his book.

And you do know how proteins are produced, don't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


show me a link where a mutation was observed, which then altered pigmentation....just curious.  He's vague in his book about this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sure you can do that yourself.

I'm curious too: your think that pigmentation can't be altered by a mutation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the question is whether or not this pigmentation will lead to a more "fit" organism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A male fly with this pigmentation can court females.

Another question: do you think that pigmentation never influences reproductive success?
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,15:51

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:48)
by the way, the pigmentation thing isn't really what I was asking for.  Any mutation that can increase pigmentation is simply emphasizing what's already there...there is no new morphological addition....ie..new parts.

edit: here's my challenge again:

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.  

Please keep in mind that there are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death.    .    .    .    Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey now!  Don't go blaming jeannot for your goalpost moving.  Do your own work!
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,15:53

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:48)
by the way, the pigmentation thing isn't really what I was asking for.  Any mutation that can increase pigmentation is simply emphasizing what's already there...there is no new morphological addition....ie..new parts.

edit: here's my challenge again:

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.  

Please keep in mind that there are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death.    .    .    .    Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could you give us an example?

For instance, what are the "new parts" between chimp and human, that make us, according to you, so much different?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,15:58

turns out pigmentation of the fruit fly doesn't work at all:

< http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen....a_1.php >


"Sean Carroll is one of the leading researchers bridging the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. His students' work on the evolution of Drosophila wing pigmentation (reviewed here and here by PZ Myers) revealed that changes in the cis-regulatory elements (CREs) flanking the yellow gene are partially responsible for the gain and loss of wing spots during evolution. The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes. It would be interesting to find out why this trait is sexual dimorphic (only males have wing spots, so some sex-specific upstream transcription factors are probably involved in determining the phenotype) and what other genes are involved the pigmentation patterning (the transgenic D. melanogaster have dark pigmentation in the anterior-distal portion of their wing, but this pattern is not as crisp as in the species with endogenous pigmentation)."
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,16:00

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:58)
turns out pigmentation of the fruit fly doesn't work at all:

< http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen....a_1.php >


"Sean Carroll is one of the leading researchers bridging the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. His students' work on the evolution of Drosophila wing pigmentation (reviewed here and here by PZ Myers) revealed that changes in the cis-regulatory elements (CREs) flanking the yellow gene are partially responsible for the gain and loss of wing spots during evolution. The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes. It would be interesting to find out why this trait is sexual dimorphic (only males have wing spots, so some sex-specific upstream transcription factors are probably involved in determining the phenotype) and what other genes are involved the pigmentation patterning (the transgenic D. melanogaster have dark pigmentation in the anterior-distal portion of their wing, but this pattern is not as crisp as in the species with endogenous pigmentation)."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is it that you don't understand in this report?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,16:00

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,15:53)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:48)
by the way, the pigmentation thing isn't really what I was asking for.  Any mutation that can increase pigmentation is simply emphasizing what's already there...there is no new morphological addition....ie..new parts.

edit: here's my challenge again:

I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. ) For example, the eye was said to have evolved by way of numerous mutations, each mutation adding on to what previous mutations (plus selection) had added before.  

Please keep in mind that there are mutations that duplicate existing structures, mutations that reduce existing structures, mutations that deform organisms, and mutations that cause disease and death.    .    .    .    Unfortunately for Darwinists, however, mutations can add nothing beneficial to the observable phenotype, which is the cornerstone of ToE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Could you give us an example?

For instance, what are the "new parts" between chimp and human, that make us, according to you, so much different?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well, you've got to account for all the organs and tissues in the body...pick one and show me how a mutation can form one or part of one:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anatomical_topics >
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,16:01

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:00)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:58)
turns out pigmentation of the fruit fly doesn't work at all:

< http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen....a_1.php >


"Sean Carroll is one of the leading researchers bridging the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. His students' work on the evolution of Drosophila wing pigmentation (reviewed here and here by PZ Myers) revealed that changes in the cis-regulatory elements (CREs) flanking the yellow gene are partially responsible for the gain and loss of wing spots during evolution. The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes. It would be interesting to find out why this trait is sexual dimorphic (only males have wing spots, so some sex-specific upstream transcription factors are probably involved in determining the phenotype) and what other genes are involved the pigmentation patterning (the transgenic D. melanogaster have dark pigmentation in the anterior-distal portion of their wing, but this pattern is not as crisp as in the species with endogenous pigmentation)."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What it is that you don't understand in this report?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


it's the "expression" of the same gene, not a change in sequence that is responsible for the change in phenotype:

"The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes."
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 18 2007,16:02

souperspork

phenotype is not the corner of ToE and has not been since Weldon and Bateson argued about nothing.  It's like you have never heard of 20 century biology.  

buuuuuuuuttttttt.....  since you have revolutionary views that will completely transform the face of science, here is a journal that will be receptive to them.  they need help.

< SuperSpunk's Nobel Prize Is Waiting... >
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,16:04

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 18 2007,16:02)
souperspork

phenotype is not the corner of ToE and has not been since Weldon and Bateson argued about nothing.  It's like you have never heard of 20 century biology.  

buuuuuuuuttttttt.....  since you have revolutionary views that will completely transform the face of science, here is a journal that will be receptive to them.  they need help.

< SuperSpunk's Nobel Prize Is Waiting... >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well it should be....bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,16:04

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:01)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:00)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:58)
turns out pigmentation of the fruit fly doesn't work at all:

< http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen....a_1.php >


"Sean Carroll is one of the leading researchers bridging the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. His students' work on the evolution of Drosophila wing pigmentation (reviewed here and here by PZ Myers) revealed that changes in the cis-regulatory elements (CREs) flanking the yellow gene are partially responsible for the gain and loss of wing spots during evolution. The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes. It would be interesting to find out why this trait is sexual dimorphic (only males have wing spots, so some sex-specific upstream transcription factors are probably involved in determining the phenotype) and what other genes are involved the pigmentation patterning (the transgenic D. melanogaster have dark pigmentation in the anterior-distal portion of their wing, but this pattern is not as crisp as in the species with endogenous pigmentation)."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What it is that you don't understand in this report?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


it's the "expression" of the same gene, not a change in sequence that is responsible for the change in phenotype.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The change of expression results from a mutation.
So you got your answer. Are you satisfied?

A link for you: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair >

(I'm not saying that red-haired are fitter)
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 18 2007,16:05

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:01)
it's the "expression" of the same gene, not a change in sequence that is responsible for the change in phenotype:

"The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh, if you ever manage to read past Genesis, you would understand that the change in sequence occurred in a regulatory region of the DNA. This is still a change in sequence. It is still a change in phenotype. It is still an excellent example of what you asked for.

Now please give us that scientific evidence for mental processes generating life instantly.

thanks again for ignoring this question.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,16:05



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
well, you've got to account for all the organs and tissues in the body
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah!  Like why we humans have lungs and apes don't! Oh wait, uh, I mean, oooops.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,16:07

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:04)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:01)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:00)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:58)
turns out pigmentation of the fruit fly doesn't work at all:

< http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen....a_1.php >


"Sean Carroll is one of the leading researchers bridging the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. His students' work on the evolution of Drosophila wing pigmentation (reviewed here and here by PZ Myers) revealed that changes in the cis-regulatory elements (CREs) flanking the yellow gene are partially responsible for the gain and loss of wing spots during evolution. The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes. It would be interesting to find out why this trait is sexual dimorphic (only males have wing spots, so some sex-specific upstream transcription factors are probably involved in determining the phenotype) and what other genes are involved the pigmentation patterning (the transgenic D. melanogaster have dark pigmentation in the anterior-distal portion of their wing, but this pattern is not as crisp as in the species with endogenous pigmentation)."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What it is that you don't understand in this report?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


it's the "expression" of the same gene, not a change in sequence that is responsible for the change in phenotype.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The change of expression results from a mutation.
So you got your answer. Are you satisfied?

A link for you: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair >

(I'm not saying that red-haired are fitter)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's just an assumption, not science....there is no observable mutation here for the pigmentation change, just a re-expression of the same gene.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,16:07

supersport:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,16:08

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:05)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
well, you've got to account for all the organs and tissues in the body
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah!  Like why we humans have lungs and apes don't! Oh wait, uh, I mean, oooops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


bacteria don't....and that's what we came from -- or something like it.  So where did lungs come from?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,16:09

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
supersport:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if evos can say "genes" or the "genome" get passed down without any proof then I can say the mind can get passed down.  Neither is science.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,16:10

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
supersport:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if evos can say "genes" get passed down without any proof then I can say the mind can get passed down.  Neither is science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh.  You keep asking questions.  They keep getting answered.  You ask new questions.  They get answered too.  How about throwing me a bone and presenting an answer to how minds get passed down.  It doesn't even have to be lucid--just anything will do.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,16:11

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:04)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:01)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:00)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:58)
turns out pigmentation of the fruit fly doesn't work at all:

< http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen....a_1.php >


"Sean Carroll is one of the leading researchers bridging the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. His students' work on the evolution of Drosophila wing pigmentation (reviewed here and here by PZ Myers) revealed that changes in the cis-regulatory elements (CREs) flanking the yellow gene are partially responsible for the gain and loss of wing spots during evolution. The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes. It would be interesting to find out why this trait is sexual dimorphic (only males have wing spots, so some sex-specific upstream transcription factors are probably involved in determining the phenotype) and what other genes are involved the pigmentation patterning (the transgenic D. melanogaster have dark pigmentation in the anterior-distal portion of their wing, but this pattern is not as crisp as in the species with endogenous pigmentation)."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What it is that you don't understand in this report?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


it's the "expression" of the same gene, not a change in sequence that is responsible for the change in phenotype.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The change of expression results from a mutation.
So you got your answer. Are you satisfied?

A link for you: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair >

(I'm not saying that red-haired are fitter)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's just an assumption, not science....there is no observable mutation here for the pigmentation change, just a re-expression of the same gene.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The level of expression is altered by a mutation in the cis-regulatory sequence.
Is it clear enough?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,16:12

how does this happen without mental processes (the mind) sensing the environment and then altering the body?

< http://www.bigskycichlids.com/coloration_article.htm >

Coloration is controlled by the endocrine and nervous system, but dietary sources of pigment also play a role in determining color in fishes. The endocrine and nervous system both influence coloration in fish. The pituitary gland secretes hormones that direct the production and storage of pigments throughout the life of a fish, and particularly as maturity is reached. Pigment production and storage often increases at the onset of maturity. Many species use color to provide camouflage and attract a mate. Fish of the family Cichlidae are particularly known for brilliant coloration of mature males. The autonomic nervous system directs rapid color changes in response to stimuli such as a predator or an aggressive tankmate. Anyone who has observed fish knows this color change can occur at a spectacular rate
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 18 2007,16:13

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:08)
So where did lungs come from?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clearly, they came from those mental processes generating things that we are all so anxious to hear the scientific evidence for.

Assertion is not argument.

You are not arguing.

So I think I will stop listening; I have students to indoctrinate and materialist papers to publish.

Please PM me whenever you get around to presenting that evidence for mental processes generating life instantly. Not that I would ever believe that you would recognize a mental process yourself...
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 18 2007,16:14

I thought what got passed down was the DNA and the other chemicals present in the egg and sperm cells.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,16:14

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
supersport:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if evos can say "genes" or the "genome" get passed down without any proof then I can say the mind can get passed down.  Neither is science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's interesting. Mendel showed quite the contrary more than 150 years ago.
He detected no evidence that the bodies and minds of his pea plants were passed down.
Mendel was a priest BTW, and he preceded Darwin.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendel >
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,16:14

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:11)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:04)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:01)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:00)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:58)
turns out pigmentation of the fruit fly doesn't work at all:

< http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen....a_1.php >


"Sean Carroll is one of the leading researchers bridging the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. His students' work on the evolution of Drosophila wing pigmentation (reviewed here and here by PZ Myers) revealed that changes in the cis-regulatory elements (CREs) flanking the yellow gene are partially responsible for the gain and loss of wing spots during evolution. The Carroll lab has not unraveled the entire story, but they have shown that changes in the expression of a gene (rather than its protein coding sequence) can lead to novel phenotypes. It would be interesting to find out why this trait is sexual dimorphic (only males have wing spots, so some sex-specific upstream transcription factors are probably involved in determining the phenotype) and what other genes are involved the pigmentation patterning (the transgenic D. melanogaster have dark pigmentation in the anterior-distal portion of their wing, but this pattern is not as crisp as in the species with endogenous pigmentation)."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What it is that you don't understand in this report?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


it's the "expression" of the same gene, not a change in sequence that is responsible for the change in phenotype.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The change of expression results from a mutation.
So you got your answer. Are you satisfied?

A link for you: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_hair >

(I'm not saying that red-haired are fitter)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's just an assumption, not science....there is no observable mutation here for the pigmentation change, just a re-expression of the same gene.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The level of expression is altered by a mutation in the cis-regulatory sequence.
Is it clear enough?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Article about Sean Carrol and evo devo you should read:

< http://www.vardaman.com/frid/fridrep102105.php >

"Similarly, a gene that affects pigmentation in birds like the chicken and the bananaquit also affects pigmentation in mammals like the jaguar and you. Indeed, changes in bird-plumage color often involve the same gene that causes red hair in humans. This surprising genetic conservatism across nearly all animals is evo devo’s key empirical finding: swans, swallowtails, and socialites are all built from the same genes…

“The real excitement about evo devo, however, has to do with its third claim. Carroll and others have taken the next, and by far the most radical, step and argue that evolution is mostly a matter of throwing these switches.

“Evo devo’s emphasis on switch-throwing represents a profound departure from evolutionary biology’s long obsession with genes. Animal evolution works not so much by changing genes, Carroll maintains, but by changing when and where a conserved set of genes is expressed. In the lingo, evolution is regulatory (involving patterns of gene expression), not structural (involving the precise proteins coded by genes)."
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,16:16

Darwinists don’t like the origin-of-life topic brought up in the context of the evo/creo debate. To this they will always proclaim that ToE does not attempt to answer the question of life’s origin. Yet if you read any evolutionists’ books or talk to evos on debate forums they will almost always frame the debate as ToE against special creation. At first this may sound like an ok premise, but if you think about it, it’s off base and it's a diversion. Let me explain:

When evolutionists like Richard Dawkins – or any of the rest of them – frame the debate, they will almost always proclaim the debate is between ToE and special creation...(ie.."Goddidit")….YET evos are the first to admit that ToE is not a theory that deals with origin of life. So we have a disconnect: We have theory of biological change (ToE) being pitted not against another theory of biological change, but against a supernatural creation event. This is wrong, wrong, and wrong…In my opinion, the debate should not be between RMNS vs. special creation, but RMNS against a biological alternative to how change happens: In this case, the polar opposite to RMNS is the ability of the MIND/mental processes to bring about beneficial, purposeful heritable change.

But guess what…..Darwinists hate the mind. They never, but never, mention it in the context of evolution because the mind/mental processes is not only non-scientific, but is something that cannot even be defined, much less measured. The mind to evolutionists is like Kryptonite to Superman. You see, what evolutionists know is that in this day and age it’s accepted and even politically correct to bash and mock YECs…and it’s almost getting to that point even with God. However, it’s not quite so easy to bash the brain, mind, consciousness, awareness and other mental processes, which most people in society would admit are darn-near miraculous. So instead of bashing the mind, evolutionists merely ignore it, choosing instead to bash YEC, which is not even a biological theory of change! Talk about the strawmen of strawmen!

Heck, read any book: Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Darwin, or anyone else, NONE of them talk about the mind, which is the real biological alternative to Darwinism. At most, these people will make some sort of negative comment about creationists or lamarckism. Never is the mind brought up as a possible alternative to RMNS.

So Dawkins and his satellites have successfully pitted ToE against the 6-day Creation story mostly because the 6-day Creation story is (to many people) an unbelievable-sounding event….(by the way, miracles usually are unbelievable-sounding). But Dawkins dares not bring up ToE’s REAL biological opponent: the mind. And in kind, evolutionists have historically refused to test mental processes in animals because they want no part of anything that would contradict their beloved materialism. If the mind indeed controls evolutionary change, then evos’ assertion that mental processes are mere by-products of eons of random physical events is false and thus destroys the whole theory. Sensing/thinking/believing/knowing/being aware can, however, change the expression of DNA -- which, to the chagrin of evos, introduces free will into biology and makes us creators of our own destiny to a certain degree.

Not only that, but the idea that the mind controls biology eliminates the idea that changes in biology are part of a long string of random events that turn creatures into different kinds of creatures over time. Instead, biological change has nothing to do with the build-up of organisms nor the origination of the mind.....which leads to the conclusion that the mind was not built up over time -- and thus must have been created instantly.


< http://www.ernestrossi.com/about_p....erience >

"We now know that significant life events can turn on genes that lead to the synthesis of proteins, which, in turn, generate new neurons and connections in our brain. Our daily and hourly life experiences, thoughts, emotions, and behavior can modulate gene expression and neurogenesis in ways that actually can change the physical structure of the brain.

This new worldview of the relationships between gene expression and human experience emerging from the Human Genome Project is setting the stage for a profound expansion of our understanding of life.....

...In Chapter 2 we take our first steps in exploring the surprising and little known research on behavioral state-related gene expression: How behavioral states such as sleeping, dreaming, consciousness, vigilance, stress, emotional arousal, and depression are associated with different patterns of gene expression. We learn how a special class of genes called “immediate early genes” can respond to significant life events and psychosocial cues in an adaptive manner within minutes!"
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,16:23

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:12)
how does this happen without mental processes (the mind) sensing the environment and then altering the body?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need to learn what "heritability" means.
Place different cichlid species in various environments and see what happens. You'll get some minor variations (environmental variance) but most of the difference between species won't be altered, and they will be transfered to their descendants (genetic variance).

Buy an aquarium, some cichlid fishes and see for yourself.

This is basic quantitative genetic, which rules out your hypothesis.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,16:26

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:23)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:12)
how does this happen without mental processes (the mind) sensing the environment and then altering the body?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need to learn what "heritability" means.
Place different cichlid species in various environments and see what happens. You'll get some minor variations (environmental variance) but most of the difference between species won't be altered, and they will be transfered to their descendants (genetic variance).



This is basic quantitative genetic, which rules out your hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


prove it....show me how science has disproven the notion that acquired traits can be inherited.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,16:28

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:14)
“Evo devo’s emphasis on switch-throwing represents a profound departure from evolutionary biology’s long obsession with genes. Animal evolution works not so much by changing genes, Carroll maintains, but by changing when and where a conserved set of genes is expressed. In the lingo, evolution is regulatory (involving patterns of gene expression), not structural (involving the precise proteins coded by genes)."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what?

Do you wish to update your challenge, so we have to come with a mutation that does NOT affect a regulatory sequence, but a coding region?

Your quotes pretty much debunks what you've been saying so far, BTW.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 18 2007,16:29

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:16)
Darwinists don’t like the origin-of-life topic brought up in the context of the evo/creo debate. To this they will always proclaim that ToE does not attempt to answer the question of life’s origin. Yet if you read any evolutionists’ books or talk to evos on debate forums they will almost always frame the debate as ToE against special creation. At first this may sound like an ok premise, but if you think about it, it’s off base and it's a diversion. Let me explain:

When evolutionists like Richard Dawkins – or any of the rest of them – frame the debate, they will almost always proclaim the debate is between ToE and special creation...(ie.."Goddidit")….YET evos are the first to admit that ToE is not a theory that deals with origin of life. So we have a disconnect: We have theory of biological change (ToE) being pitted not against another theory of biological change, but against a supernatural creation event. This is wrong, wrong, and wrong…In my opinion, the debate should not be between RMNS vs. special creation, but RMNS against a biological alternative to how change happens: In this case, the polar opposite to RMNS is the ability of the MIND/mental processes to bring about beneficial, purposeful heritable change.

But guess what…..Darwinists hate the mind. They never, but never, mention it in the context of evolution because the mind/mental processes is not only non-scientific, but is something that cannot even be defined, much less measured. The mind to evolutionists is like Kryptonite to Superman. You see, what evolutionists know is that in this day and age it’s accepted and even politically correct to bash and mock YECs…and it’s almost getting to that point even with God. However, it’s not quite so easy to bash the brain, mind, consciousness, awareness and other mental processes, which most people in society would admit are darn-near miraculous. So instead of bashing the mind, evolutionists merely ignore it, choosing instead to bash YEC, which is not even a biological theory of change! Talk about the strawmen of strawmen!

Heck, read any book: Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Darwin, or anyone else, NONE of them talk about the mind, which is the real biological alternative to Darwinism. At most, these people will make some sort of negative comment about creationists or lamarckism. Never is the mind brought up as a possible alternative to RMNS.

So Dawkins and his satellites have successfully pitted ToE against the 6-day Creation story mostly because the 6-day Creation story is (to many people) an unbelievable-sounding event….(by the way, miracles usually are unbelievable-sounding). But Dawkins dares not bring up ToE’s REAL biological opponent: the mind. And in kind, evolutionists have historically refused to test mental processes in animals because they want no part of anything that would contradict their beloved materialism. If the mind indeed controls evolutionary change, then evos’ assertion that mental processes are mere by-products of eons of random physical events is false and thus destroys the whole theory. Sensing/thinking/believing/knowing/being aware can, however, change the expression of DNA -- which, to the chagrin of evos, introduces free will into biology and makes us creators of our own destiny to a certain degree.

Not only that, but the idea that the mind controls biology eliminates the idea that changes in biology are part of a long string of random events that turn creatures into different kinds of creatures over time. Instead, biological change has nothing to do with the build-up of organisms nor the origination of the mind.....which leads to the conclusion that the mind was not built up over time -- and thus must have been created instantly.


< http://www.ernestrossi.com/about_p....erience >

"We now know that significant life events can turn on genes that lead to the synthesis of proteins, which, in turn, generate new neurons and connections in our brain. Our daily and hourly life experiences, thoughts, emotions, and behavior can modulate gene expression and neurogenesis in ways that actually can change the physical structure of the brain.

This new worldview of the relationships between gene expression and human experience emerging from the Human Genome Project is setting the stage for a profound expansion of our understanding of life.....

...In Chapter 2 we take our first steps in exploring the surprising and little known research on behavioral state-related gene expression: How behavioral states such as sleeping, dreaming, consciousness, vigilance, stress, emotional arousal, and depression are associated with different patterns of gene expression. We learn how a special class of genes called “immediate early genes” can respond to significant life events and psychosocial cues in an adaptive manner within minutes!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


SS,

Again, you are just wrong.  TOE has nothing to do with Origins.  Attempt to tie the two are disingenious.

"but against a supernatural creation event."..again, there is no supporting evidence for the supernatural creation event.  Not one piece.

Your agrument for the morphology, as you frame it, is laughable.  I guess those millions or so with spinal damage just aren't focusing their mental capabilities hard enough for a new spine.

What sad is, all the arguments you post have repeatedly been dealt with here...over and over....and all been debunked.

That is until another Creo comes out here after sniffing the pile at AIG or some other remedial site and thinks they have just discovered the answers to the universe.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,16:32

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:26)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:23)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:12)
how does this happen without mental processes (the mind) sensing the environment and then altering the body?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need to learn what "heritability" means.
Place different cichlid species in various environments and see what happens. You'll get some minor variations (environmental variance) but most of the difference between species won't be altered, and they will be transfered to their descendants (genetic variance).



This is basic quantitative genetic, which rules out your hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


prove it....show me how science has disproven the notion that acquired traits can be inherited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Acquired traits can be inherited (epi-genetics), but that's very limited.
You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarkism >

Basically, every experiment of quantitative genetics, every experiment of artificial selection (and there are thousands of them) show that genes are transfered, not acquired traits. I'm sure you could find some example in the scientific literature, if you bothered to look for yourself.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,16:37

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:32)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:26)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:23)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:12)
how does this happen without mental processes (the mind) sensing the environment and then altering the body?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need to learn what "heritability" means.
Place different cichlid species in various environments and see what happens. You'll get some minor variations (environmental variance) but most of the difference between species won't be altered, and they will be transfered to their descendants (genetic variance).



This is basic quantitative genetic, which rules out your hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


prove it....show me how science has disproven the notion that acquired traits can be inherited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Acquired traits can be inherited (epi-genetics), but that's very limited.
You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarkism >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


prove it...I need to see where it was lamarckism was proven wrong.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,16:41

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:32)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:26)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:23)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:12)
how does this happen without mental processes (the mind) sensing the environment and then altering the body?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need to learn what "heritability" means.
Place different cichlid species in various environments and see what happens. You'll get some minor variations (environmental variance) but most of the difference between species won't be altered, and they will be transfered to their descendants (genetic variance).



This is basic quantitative genetic, which rules out your hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


prove it....show me how science has disproven the notion that acquired traits can be inherited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Acquired traits can be inherited (epi-genetics), but that's very limited.
You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarkism >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


also, please prove that epigenetic inheritance is "limited."...limited to what?

Where do you get this stuff?...do you just make stuff up as you go along?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,16:44

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:41)
Where do you get this stuff?...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In textbooks and scientific journals.
Now do your homework.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,16:48

supersport,

you remain stupid, boring, and derivative.

Please fix at least 2 of these things.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 18 2007,16:52

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:04)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 18 2007,16:02)
souperspork

phenotype is not the corner of ToE and has not been since Weldon and Bateson argued about nothing.  It's like you have never heard of 20 century biology.  

buuuuuuuuttttttt.....  since you have revolutionary views that will completely transform the face of science, here is a journal that will be receptive to them.  they need help.

< SuperSpunk's Nobel Prize Is Waiting... >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well it should be....bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So when people say I have my mother's eyes, I should give them back?  :D
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 18 2007,16:57

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:48)
supersport,

you remain stupid, boring, and derivative.

Please fix at least 2 of these things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno, I'm still chuckling at his 'gay swan' post.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 18 2007,16:58

Re "So when people say I have my mother's eyes, I should give them back?"

That sounds like something out of the Addam's Family.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,17:03

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,16:44)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:41)
Where do you get this stuff?...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In textbooks and scientific journals.
Now do your homework.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wrong. which ones? titles?
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,17:15

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 18 2007,16:57)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:48)
supersport,

you remain stupid, boring, and derivative.

Please fix at least 2 of these things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I dunno, I'm still chuckling at his 'gay swan' post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alright, I'll give him that.  But that is the exception to prove the rule so far.  He could get better.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Sep. 18 2007,17:17

Further proof that you can't tell a creo-parody from the real thing. Were it not for the apparently extensive electron trail of this loon's prior adventures on teh intertubez, I would be calling shenannigans.
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 18 2007,17:19

I didn't see anyone else post this, but as an astronomer, this is the most hilarious thing he's said so far (and thats doing pretty good - the 'tard is strong with this one.)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

""We already know that E=mc2 is wrong because it contradicts Newton's law of gravity. E=mc2 says nothing is faster than the speed of light....yet as we know, this is not correct. Gravity is instantaneous, thus faster than the speed of light. If the earth were to move, for example, the moon would somehow "know" it and move right along with it. Same with the sun...if the sun were to move, the planets would follow the sun around, all without ropes.

Scientists have long known that Einstein's theory contradicted Newton's law of gravity, but it's just one of those things they try to keep hush about and sweep under the carpet like it doesn't exist.

So if E=mc2 is wrong, which it is, then we can pretty much be assured that astronomers and cosmologists are not to be trusted because they simply do not know what they're talking about."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We knew Newtonian gravity was wrong long before Einstein. Care to explain the precession of mercury?

Oh, and E=mc2 gives the energy output when mass is converted to energy. It doesn't say anything about traveling faster than light. Thats relativity. Using the right terms is a good way not to look like a complete fool. (But you've still got a long way to go there.)
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 18 2007,17:24

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:37)
prove it...I need to see where it was lamarckism was proven wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it didn't need to be proven wrong, because it never was a scientific theory. Lamark produced blind assertions and never submitted them to experiments.
So it's up to you. Show us those acquired traits being inherited? Bronzed skin? Scars? Fractures? Hair cut? Will your children be more muscular if you practice body-building?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,17:39

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,17:24)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:37)
prove it...I need to see where it was lamarckism was proven wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it didn't need to be proven wrong, because it never was a scientific theory. Lamark produced blind assertions and never submitted them to experiments.
So it's up to you. Show us those acquired traits being inherited? Bronzed skin? Scars? Fractures? Hair cut? Will your children be more muscular if you practice body-building?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well who said this?

"You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago"

Why is it up to ME to prove or disprove Lamarckism -- don't you think 100 years of science should have accomplished something like this by now?  The purposeful generation/heritability of traits is EASY to test.  Don't blame me for science being full of a bunch of chickens.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,17:43

Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 18 2007,17:19)
I didn't see anyone else post this, but as an astronomer, this is the most hilarious thing he's said so far (and thats doing pretty good - the 'tard is strong with this one.)

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

""We already know that E=mc2 is wrong because it contradicts Newton's law of gravity. E=mc2 says nothing is faster than the speed of light....yet as we know, this is not correct. Gravity is instantaneous, thus faster than the speed of light. If the earth were to move, for example, the moon would somehow "know" it and move right along with it. Same with the sun...if the sun were to move, the planets would follow the sun around, all without ropes.

Scientists have long known that Einstein's theory contradicted Newton's law of gravity, but it's just one of those things they try to keep hush about and sweep under the carpet like it doesn't exist.

So if E=mc2 is wrong, which it is, then we can pretty much be assured that astronomers and cosmologists are not to be trusted because they simply do not know what they're talking about."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We knew Newtonian gravity was wrong long before Einstein. Care to explain the precession of mercury?

Oh, and E=mc2 gives the energy output when mass is converted to energy. It doesn't say anything about traveling faster than light. Thats relativity. Using the right terms is a good way not to look like a complete fool. (But you've still got a long way to go there.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp >

"The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous. This seemed unacceptable on two counts. In the first place, it seemed to be a form of “action at a distance”. Perhaps no one has so elegantly expressed the objection to such a concept better than Sir Isaac Newton: “That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of any thing else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to the other, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” (See Hoffman, 1983.) But mediation requires propagation, and finite bodies should be incapable of propagation at infinite speeds since that would require infinite energy. So instantaneous gravity seemed to have an element of magic to it.


Indeed, it is widely accepted, even if less widely known, that the speed of gravity in Newton’s Universal Law is unconditionally infinite."
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,17:47

Nerull: "Oh, and E=mc2 gives the energy output when mass is converted to energy. It doesn't say anything about traveling faster than light"

Taken from "Faster than the Speed of Light" by Joao Magueijo

"Einstein was well aware that the Newtonian theory of gravity was at odds with his thoery of special relativity at the very fundamental level.  It contradicted the idea that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light." pg. 46
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,17:50

Light has no speed limit anyway...surely you guys knew that by now!

< http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth....116.xml >

"A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time."
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 18 2007,17:59

Yes, newtonian gravity doesn't work with relativity - thats because newtonian gravity is *wrong*.

We've known that for a long time.

Newtonian gravity cannot explain the precession of mercury, among many other things. Can you? The answer requires relativity.

Newtonian gravity is only used for cases where it approximates the answer from relativity, because its easier to work with, but to accurately predict real observations you must use relativity.

You can cry "Newtonian gravity has instantaneous gravity!!!!!" all you like. It does. The problem is it doesn't work!.

Newtonian gravity cannot accurately describe the universe we see. It was a good approximation from what we knew at the time of newton, but its just that, an approximation. One that breaks if you take it too far.

The fact that you continue to cling to it just shows how ignorant of everything you are. Newton would slap you around, were he here. He was the first to model gravity, with limited knowledge. Its not perfect, Newton didn't expect it to be perfect, and only someone who is willfully ignorant of all physics advances would think it was.
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 18 2007,18:02

Oh, and that experiment is quantum tunneling. It does not violate relativity, the guy doing the experiment doesn't claim it does. That comes from overzealous reporters. Strike two.
Posted by: qetzal on Sep. 18 2007,18:04

By coincidence, the gravity travels faster than light thing was < re-debunked > last week by Mark Chu-Carroll on Good Math, Bad Math (hosted by the highly recommended < ScienceBlogs >).
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,18:09

Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 18 2007,18:02)
Oh, and that experiment is quantum tunneling. It does not violate relativity, the guy doing the experiment doesn't claim it does. That comes from overzealous reporters. Strike two.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


who cares how it happened?...and the speed of light has slowed down in the past centuries so obviously it is variable.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,18:10

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,17:47)
Nerull: "Oh, and E=mc2 gives the energy output when mass is converted to energy. It doesn't say anything about traveling faster than light"

Taken from "Faster than the Speed of Light" by Joao Magueijo

"Einstein was well aware that the Newtonian theory of gravity was at odds with his thoery of special relativity at the very fundamental level.  It contradicted the idea that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light." pg. 46
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


any explanation as to why you would get this basic information so wrong?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,18:12

< http://www.relativitycollapse.com/emc2.html >

E=mc2 is wrong.
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 18 2007,18:23

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,18:10)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,17:47)
Nerull: "Oh, and E=mc2 gives the energy output when mass is converted to energy. It doesn't say anything about traveling faster than light"

Taken from "Faster than the Speed of Light" by Joao Magueijo

"Einstein was well aware that the Newtonian theory of gravity was at odds with his thoery of special relativity at the very fundamental level.  It contradicted the idea that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light." pg. 46
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


any explanation as to why you would get this basic information so wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you like me to explain exactly what E=mc^2 means? Its pretty obvious you've got no idea.
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 18 2007,18:26

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,18:09)
Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 18 2007,18:02)
Oh, and that experiment is quantum tunneling. It does not violate relativity, the guy doing the experiment doesn't claim it does. That comes from overzealous reporters. Strike two.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


who cares how it happened?...and the speed of light has slowed down in the past centuries so obviously it is variable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Got any evidence for that, any at all?

Didn't think so.
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 18 2007,18:30

I'll state this again, nice and slow.

Newtonian...gravity....does...not...work.

Yes, it does require instantaneous gravity. It also doesn't actually *work*. Its broken. It is completely useless except as a simplified version of relativity that works in some situations.

How can anyone be this thick? Newtonian gravity does not disprove relativity, because relativity is a further refinement of it. Reality disproves newtonian gravity. Only relativity correctly describes what we see in the real world.

Get out of your basement, do some actual research. Try learning something for a change. There's a whole world out there. I know it'll be hard for you to leave the comfort of the world you've created in your own mind, but seriously, get out and get help.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 18 2007,18:31

Well, the boy sure can google and quote articles from the net. Too bad he can't read them and understand them.  But it is entertaining, if you like to watch verbal diarrhea.

I am sure it will be even more entertaining if he ever gets around to giving us those peer-reviewed articles about how mental processes can generate life instantly. I tried to find them in Web of Science, but no luck. Maybe tomorrow he provide some citations.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,18:35

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,23:39)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,17:24)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:37)
prove it...I need to see where it was lamarckism was proven wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it didn't need to be proven wrong, because it never was a scientific theory. Lamark produced blind assertions and never submitted them to experiments.
So it's up to you. Show us those acquired traits being inherited? Bronzed skin? Scars? Fractures? Hair cut? Will your children be more muscular if you practice body-building?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well who said this?

"You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago"

Why is it up to ME to prove or disprove Lamarckism -- don't you think 100 years of science should have accomplished something like this by now?  The purposeful generation/heritability of traits is EASY to test.  Don't blame me for science being full of a bunch of chickens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if anyone has bothered to respond to this, but Weismann cut the tails off several generations of mice in order to test inheritable acquired traits. It didn't work.

< Link. >
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 18 2007,18:37

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,19:12)
< http://www.relativitycollapse.com/emc2.html >

E=mc2 is wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Michael Strauss is an engineer  and author of Requiem for Relativity the Collapse of Special Relativity. To contact the author visit: www.relativitycollapse.com or www.relativitycollapse.net
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 

An engineer. I'm shocked. Shocked I say.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,18:37

Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 19 2007,00:23)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,18:10)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,17:47)
Nerull: "Oh, and E=mc2 gives the energy output when mass is converted to energy. It doesn't say anything about traveling faster than light"

Taken from "Faster than the Speed of Light" by Joao Magueijo

"Einstein was well aware that the Newtonian theory of gravity was at odds with his thoery of special relativity at the very fundamental level.  It contradicted the idea that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light." pg. 46
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


any explanation as to why you would get this basic information so wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you like me to explain exactly what E=mc^2 means? Its pretty obvious you've got no idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Energy = Mass X constant (speed of light) squared.

I'm not sure what it actually means, but that's what the equation is.
Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 18 2007,18:52

It describes the energy you get when you convert mass to energy. (Or energy to mass, if you can find a way to do that).

It has nothing to do with the speed things can travel. Its completely unrelated. If he actually knew what it ment, he wouldn't bring it up, because its silly. Its about as relevant to something going faster than light than the fact that I had a hamburger last week.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,19:00

Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 19 2007,00:52)
It describes the energy you get when you convert mass to energy. (Or energy to mass, if you can find a way to do that).

It has nothing to do with the speed things can travel. Its completely unrelated. If he actually knew what it ment, he wouldn't bring it up, because its silly. Its about as relevant to something going faster than light than the fact that I had a hamburger last week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To be fair to supes, it IS presented in much science fiction as being something to do with speed, specifically the speed of light, or the possibility of time travel (probably involving the speed of light).

Not that that means he can accurately discuss what is a really hard concept (I know I can't, beyond being able to state what the letters stand for), but I think you can forgive him for being confused. Although his arrogant presumption I can't and won't defend.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,19:19

Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 18 2007,18:26)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,18:09)
Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 18 2007,18:02)
Oh, and that experiment is quantum tunneling. It does not violate relativity, the guy doing the experiment doesn't claim it does. That comes from overzealous reporters. Strike two.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


who cares how it happened?...and the speed of light has slowed down in the past centuries so obviously it is variable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Got any evidence for that, any at all?

Didn't think so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sure do.  It's called measurements.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,19:20

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,18:35)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,23:39)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,17:24)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:37)
prove it...I need to see where it was lamarckism was proven wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it didn't need to be proven wrong, because it never was a scientific theory. Lamark produced blind assertions and never submitted them to experiments.
So it's up to you. Show us those acquired traits being inherited? Bronzed skin? Scars? Fractures? Hair cut? Will your children be more muscular if you practice body-building?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well who said this?

"You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago"

Why is it up to ME to prove or disprove Lamarckism -- don't you think 100 years of science should have accomplished something like this by now?  The purposeful generation/heritability of traits is EASY to test.  Don't blame me for science being full of a bunch of chickens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if anyone has bothered to respond to this, but Weismann cut the tails off several generations of mice in order to test inheritable acquired traits. It didn't work.

< Link. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sorry that's an assualt to the organism, not an internal response to a changing environment.  Big difference.  Show me a trait generated by the animal itself and show me how science has proven it can't be inherited.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,19:21

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,01:19)
Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 18 2007,18:26)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,18:09)
 
Quote (Nerull @ Sep. 18 2007,18:02)
Oh, and that experiment is quantum tunneling. It does not violate relativity, the guy doing the experiment doesn't claim it does. That comes from overzealous reporters. Strike two.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


who cares how it happened?...and the speed of light has slowed down in the past centuries so obviously it is variable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Got any evidence for that, any at all?

Didn't think so.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sure do.  It's called measurements.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Never mind Supes. >
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,19:22

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,01:20)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,18:35)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,23:39)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,17:24)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:37)
prove it...I need to see where it was lamarckism was proven wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it didn't need to be proven wrong, because it never was a scientific theory. Lamark produced blind assertions and never submitted them to experiments.
So it's up to you. Show us those acquired traits being inherited? Bronzed skin? Scars? Fractures? Hair cut? Will your children be more muscular if you practice body-building?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well who said this?

"You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago"

Why is it up to ME to prove or disprove Lamarckism -- don't you think 100 years of science should have accomplished something like this by now?  The purposeful generation/heritability of traits is EASY to test.  Don't blame me for science being full of a bunch of chickens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if anyone has bothered to respond to this, but Weismann cut the tails off several generations of mice in order to test inheritable acquired traits. It didn't work.

< Link. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sorry that's an assualt to the organism, not an internal response to a changing environment.  Big difference.  Show me a trait generated by the animal itself and show me how science has proven it can't be inherited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, but in what way can an animal generate a trait (for example, a longer or shorter tail) without a gene mutation?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 18 2007,19:23

to nerull....the speed of light has been measured over the course of recent history and it is indeed slowing down:

< http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733 >

Early in 1979, an Australian undergraduate student named Barry Setterfield, thought it would be interesting to chart all of the measurements of the speed of light since a Dutch astronomer named Olaf Roemer first measured light speed in the late 17th century. Setterfield acquired data on over 163 measurements using 16 different methods over 300 years.

The early measurements typically tracked the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter when the planet was near the Earth and compared it with observations when then planet was farther away. These observations were standard, simple and repeatable, and have been measured by astronomers since the invention of the telescope. These are demonstrated to astronomy students even today. The early astronomers kept meticulous notes and sketches, many of which are still available.

Setterfield expected to see the recorded speeds grouped around the accepted value for light speed, roughly 299,792 kilometers /second. In simple terms, half of the historic measurements should have been higher and half should be lower.

What he found defied belief: The derived light speeds from the early measurements were significantly faster than today. Even more intriguing, the older the observation, the faster the speed of light. A sampling of these values is listed below:



In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)

Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s. Dr. Norman confirmed that the measurements were statistically significant with a confidence of more than 99 percent.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 18 2007,19:24

Oh good lord, Worldnetdaily?

I've had enough of feeding the troll. I'm off.
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 18 2007,19:30

I'll also point out, not necessarily in SS's defense, that if you're looking for an accurate prediction of reality then relativity is broken too.  It is, as was pointed out, a further refinement but ultimately just an approximation also.  Future scientists will probably look back and argue over how we could have clung to this rough approximation for so long.  That's what I love about science.
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 18 2007,20:04

Ah, Superspammer finds yet another place to regurgipost.

So, Sport - have you figgered out where RNA transcripts come from?

Know what "information" is?

Read my post explaining how Pellionisz isn't really telling you the whole truth about junkDNA?

Nah - you don't read stuff....
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 18 2007,20:07

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:45)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 17 2007,23:40)
 
Quote (J. O'Donnell @ Sep. 17 2007,23:37)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 17 2007,23:22)
just for fun, why don't you name me a disease that's been cured in the last 30 years with medicine.  Please keep in mind the trillions of dollars going into the pockets of Big Medicine.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, you mean like smallpox?

Is this supposed to be a trick question.

[Smallpox was wiped out in 1977 incidentally]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that "thirty years" is in there specifically to exclude smallpox and polio.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well actually, the past 30 years have seen the biggest rise in degnerative diseases -- heart disease, cancer, MS, diabetes, alzheimer's, etc etc......none of which have cures and all of which are killing more and more and more people despite the trillions of dollars being pumped towards Big Medicine.

I acknowledge that some diseases have been controlled or even cured, but nothing new lately...at least nothing that's doing all the killing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right, well, maybe your pal Bruce Lipton can cure all these diseases with his mind....
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 18 2007,20:08

Whoa, we're up to category five and and the delusional creationist recluse is spinning ever more furiously with his knees up. All around him is the gaze of SATAN behind 100 unbelieving stares.  

Where the HELL is my shit hat?
Posted by: argystokes on Sep. 18 2007,20:09

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,17:20)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,18:35)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,23:39)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,17:24)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:37)
prove it...I need to see where it was lamarckism was proven wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, it didn't need to be proven wrong, because it never was a scientific theory. Lamark produced blind assertions and never submitted them to experiments.
So it's up to you. Show us those acquired traits being inherited? Bronzed skin? Scars? Fractures? Hair cut? Will your children be more muscular if you practice body-building?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well who said this?

"You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago"

Why is it up to ME to prove or disprove Lamarckism -- don't you think 100 years of science should have accomplished something like this by now?  The purposeful generation/heritability of traits is EASY to test.  Don't blame me for science being full of a bunch of chickens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if anyone has bothered to respond to this, but Weismann cut the tails off several generations of mice in order to test inheritable acquired traits. It didn't work.

< Link. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sorry that's an assualt to the organism, not an internal response to a changing environment.  Big difference.  Show me a trait generated by the animal itself and show me how science has proven it can't be inherited.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, OK. I was born in June, meaning I was conceived right at the end of summer, when my parents were nicely tanned.* I came out really pale. Shockingly.



*That's an internal response to a changing environment.

But if that's not internal enough for you, then I'll let you know that even though my parents had chicken pox as children, and thus became immune, I did not inherit this protection. I feel like I'm talking to a 7 year old.
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 18 2007,20:11

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,00:28)
My philosophy:

When you sit back and look at this whole thing, the debate is so polar opposite it’s almost eery. But I just thought I’d compare and contrast what I consider the most obvious difference in philosophy.

Materialists: believe that lifeforms are evolving upwards from something ugly (bacteria, fungues, etc) by way of a purely physical mechanism…(no thought or intelligence required)

SS: believes that we are devolving downwards from something beautiful (God) by way of the mind or mental processes.

Materiatists: say genes get passed down through the generations.

SS: says the mind gets passed down through the generations.

Materialists: say the genes control the mind

SS: says the mind controls the genes

With this comparison, it is easy to see who the real competitors are: the competition is between the physical actions of genes and the mental/spiritual processes of the mind. It can be no other way. Either information gets squeezed out of the random actions of genes or it gets squeezed out of the purposeful processes of the mind.

Evolutionists give the genome the credit for being the origin of information. I, on the otherhand acknowledge that the genome is a data base of information, but is merely a storage device and does not act as the generator of information. Instead, information’s source is ultimately God, but as we were made in God’s image, information’s source also resides in our minds just like it resides in God’s mind.

We’ve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases. Society is certainly degenerating genetically…this fact alone dispells the notion that we’re in the process of increasing in complexity, as darwinists insist…instead we’re deteriorating, decreasing in complexity. But is the deteriorating genome the source of degeneration? I would say not because I believe the mind and mental processes are in control of the genome…and if this is the case, then the spiritual MIND is ultimately what’s degenerating, which makes the physical genome a follower of degeneration, not a leader. Likewise, with the emergence of new traits, the genome (the storage device) is not the leader, it’s the follower. New traits don’t come from a change in the genome, new traits come from a change in the mind.

This would make sense from a Biblical perspective. Remember how it was that Adam and Eve walked and talked in the Garden with God? I believe Adam and Eve were probably created perfectly and designed to live forever….it was only after sin entered that they Spiritually began to degenerate...and this process continues today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do you keep cut-and-pasting (spamming) your own posts on multiple boards?  That is one of the reasons that you got banned for the creationist-run Christian Forums (one of the few such forums at which the administration actually has sense).

You are boring - not just because of your monumental ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, but because you do not even have the cajones to admit errors when you make them - and you make many - and then run away spamming boards with thread after thread.  Which, by the way, I don't think you'll get away with here...
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 18 2007,20:13

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:17)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 18 2007,08:11)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:03)
the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time.  There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.)  Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. That makes perfect sense to me...

Do these guys ever listen to themselves? Basically he is saying that X is impossible, so therefore the equally impossible Y is the only possible answer...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no I actually gave you a couple reasons, did you actually read my post?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Assertions only count as 'reasons' to fools like your pals Coadie and Scarlets...
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 18 2007,20:16

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:41)
old man...you have NOT proven these bacteria have been around for millions of years....nor have proven there is no degeneration.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Have you proven that there IS degeneration?  Or are you just relying on a creationist's claims?


And where is that evidence that the mind controls gene expression?

And please - not the already refuted snail shells and caterpiller coloration nonsense...
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 18 2007,20:24

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:42)
so if chimps and humans are so close genetically, why do we look so different -- and what makes us different?  Have you ever noticed that not one single piece of anatomy looks like the other?  Sure both humans and chimps share the same types of body parts, but none of them look the same at all.....why would this be?  Why would mutations + selection change a creature, yet not change a creature?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ever seen a dwarf?  I mean, their body parts look very different from ours - some even have different numbers of joints between the bones in their fingers and toes.

And all due to a single point mutation in one gene...

But Sport knows that genes are irrelevant, so I guess the minds of the dwarfs are somehow changing their phenotypes  - so please, explain it all to us, sport.
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 18 2007,20:39

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
supersport:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if evos can say "genes" or the "genome" get passed down without any proof then I can say the mind can get passed down.  Neither is science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, when your mommy and daddy touched their thingies together, they really put their minds and bodies in mommiy's woowoo, not a sperm and an egg each with half of the diploid complement of chromosomes?

I'm shocked!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 18 2007,20:51

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
supersport:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if evos can say "genes" or the "genome" get passed down without any proof then I can say the mind can get passed down.  Neither is science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's how Black people have Chinese babies.

:)
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 18 2007,21:27

Just to add to the hilarity of the moment:

supersport,

Do you have any idea what the faster than light experiments showed?  To test whether or not you're blowing smoke out your ass, please answer this question:

Can you use the experiment's setup to send information faster than the speed of light?

Please don;t ignore this question, I need a laugh.
Posted by: khan on Sep. 18 2007,21:30

Back in high school it occurred to me that Lamarkism could be  dismissed based on the facts that men had spent many years and generations shaving their faces.

And most women in the USA have been shaving legs and armpits for a few generations.

But the little tiny hairs keep growing.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 18 2007,22:41

About this notion that organisms somehow generate beneficial changes when needed, it occurs to me that under that model changes to functional DNA should be a lot faster than it is. In times of rapid evolution, it could be expected to outpace genetic drift. That sounds to me like a testable prediction.

Also it seems like in that model evolution should have been a lot faster than it was, and should still be faster than is expected from current theory.

Btw, how the heck is that proposed model supported by pointing out that some fish make use of a mechanism that is already present in the species? That has nothing to do with the notion of a species generating a heritable change in its traits.

============



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Energy = Mass X constant (speed of light) squared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It describes the energy you get when you convert mass to energy. (Or energy to mass, if you can find a way to do that).

It has nothing to do with the speed things can travel. Its completely unrelated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As I recall, E=mc^2 derives from the equations of relativity, so there is that connection.

============



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)

Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



First, check your math. 303/299 is only a little over 1 percent.

Second, why would it be surprising that people three centuries ago could get a result that's off by a few percent?

Henry
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 18 2007,23:00

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 18 2007,20:51)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09)
   
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
supersport:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if evos can say "genes" or the "genome" get passed down without any proof then I can say the mind can get passed down.  Neither is science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's how Black people have Chinese babies.

:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and Caucasian people never have Chinese babies because...

two whites don't make a wong. :O



(ducks and runs for the exit)
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Sep. 18 2007,23:04

Quote (khan @ Sep. 18 2007,21:30)
Back in high school it occurred to me that Lamarkism could be  dismissed based on the facts that men had spent many years and generations shaving their faces.

And most women in the USA have been shaving legs and armpits for a few generations.

But the little tiny hairs keep growing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention 2000 years of circumcised Jewish men. ;) Why do their sons still need the treatment?
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 18 2007,23:23

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 18 2007,23:41)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Energy = Mass X constant (speed of light) squared.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It describes the energy you get when you convert mass to energy. (Or energy to mass, if you can find a way to do that).

It has nothing to do with the speed things can travel. Its completely unrelated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As I recall, E=mc^2 derives from the equations of relativity, so there is that connection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's possible supersport thinks E=mc^2 is the special theory of relativity. It's part of relativity, true, but not the part most directly related to the speed limit. If he was familiar with relativity he would probably say something like "v = (w - u)/(1 - wu/c2) isn't true!" or

isn't true!
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 18 2007,23:25

My guess is he knows so little about relativity that he thinks E=mc^2 is it. Or he is under the impression that if one equation of a theory is false, they all must be. Or he knows better, and is just trolling. Who knows.
Posted by: akg41470 on Sep. 18 2007,23:33

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,06:52)
everyone has hangups with sex....we "fundies" just don't do it with animals and with members of our own gender like others in society.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ted Haggard. I win.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 19 2007,00:07

no i win

< I'm in ur stalz >
Posted by: BWE on Sep. 19 2007,01:47

Sorry, I win.
< link >
Posted by: snorkild on Sep. 19 2007,05:16

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,19:23)
Dutch astronomer named Olaf Roemer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Danish astronomer named Ole Rømer.

Why does Setterfield exclude Huygen's (late 17th century) figure based on Rømer's data: 220,000 km/sec?

Why does he ignore Bradley's (1728) figure: 298,000 km/sec?

And Fizeau's (1849): 313,000 km/sec?

Cherry-picking?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 19 2007,05:29

Quote (snorkild @ Sep. 19 2007,05:16)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,19:23)
Dutch astronomer named Olaf Roemer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Danish astronomer named Ole Rømer.

Why does Setterfield exclude Huygen's (late 17th century) figure based on Rømer's data: 220,000 km/sec?

Why does he ignore Bradley's (1728) figure: 298,000 km/sec?

And Fizeau's (1849): 313,000 km/sec?

Cherry-picking?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not only that, but at those levels of changes we should be able to observe it changing year to year.

Yet we don't.

SuperSport, why is that?

Supersport, you never got back to me about the bacteria not eating toxic stuff whereas humans do, and this is your "explanation" as to why genomic degeneration only affects humans. I pointed out bacteria can thrive on so called "toxic waste" and you've yet to comment on that fact.
Posted by: Amadan on Sep. 19 2007,06:44

I think you're being very mean to poor Superspurt. The fact that Jewish boys still require circumcision doesn't disprove Lamarckian evolution at all. In fact, it supports it.

Judaism is matrilineal, and in its orthodox form is very strict about pre-marital whoopee. Leading authorities such as Sigmund Freud and Woody Allen make it clear that Jewish men are psychologically repressed and constantly obsess about pleasing their womenfolk, especially their wives and mothers. It follows logically that:

1.Jewish women seek to marry men who have been circumcised according to the law, but cannot verify that this is the case until after the wedding;
2.A good bris (ie circumcision ceremony) is a perfect way for a proud young mother to show off her new son and impress the in-laws with her decor, cooking, etc;
3. Jewish women therefore show a preference for mates who will allow for the possibility of being circumcised;
4.Jewish fathers, though themselves circumcised, repress this trait in their male offspring so that their wives get a chance to push the boat out a bit and show off the new dress.

Einstein recognised the transference of mind that SoupieSales describes. The audacity that permitted him to make his revolutionary claims is a trait inherited from his mother, a notably sparky young thing in her day. He acknowledgers this in his famous equation E=MC^2, which roughly translates as “Einstein has Mama's Chutzpah Squared”.

Not many people know this.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 19 2007,06:48

On the UD thread fusilier notes


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment during a boring cubicle job in "real estate".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So Super, how you like those apples in your cubicle job in "real estate". Guess you might have to start looking for a new job shortly eh?

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=75587 >
Posted by: fusilier on Sep. 19 2007,07:03

SS has also posted about using  a coffee enema or three to cure cancer.  Maybe his problem is just some seriously out-of-whack osmotic values.

fusilier
James 2:24
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 19 2007,07:14

This thread is like a time capsule taking me back to 1986...
Posted by: ck1 on Sep. 19 2007,07:51

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09)
supersport:        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So DNA testing to establish paternity is bogus?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,08:20

so tell me....the claim was made that lamarckism was disproven long ago....but funny, I've seen no such disproof.  Some dude cut off the tails of a bunch of mice and then bred them but this is a strawman account of what Lamarck was arguing for, that adaptations resulted from an interaction of the organism and the environment, and that internally-generated adaptations could be inherited.  He never claimed that assaults on an organism could be inherited.

Now -- someone please step up to the plate and show me where the scumbags in evolutionary science over the past century have had the balls to disprove Lamarck by way of controlled experiment.  This would be so EASY to test and disprove.   Now show me.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 19 2007,08:37

< Lamarckian ideas of inheritance > fell out of favor not just because of experiments, but because Mendelian genetics provided a better explanation of the phenomena of interest. When one mechanism displaces another on grounds of explanatory power, the consensus view shifts not so much because "disproof" of the older view is offered, but because the older view lacks properties that the new one provides.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,08:38

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 19 2007,08:37)
< Lamarckian ideas of inheritance > fell out of favor not just because of experiments, but because Mendelian genetics provided a better explanation of the phenomena of interest. When one mechanism displaces another on grounds of explanatory power, the consensus view shifts not so much because "disproof" of the older view is offered, but because the older view lacks properties that the new one provides.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"falling out of favor" is not science....it's opinion and guesswork.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 19 2007,08:39

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,08:20)
so tell me....the claim was made that lamarckism was disproven long ago....but funny, I've seen no such disproof.  Some dude cut off the tails of a bunch of mice and then bred them but this is a strawman account of what Lamarck was arguing for, that adaptations resulted from an interaction of the organism and the environment, and that internally-generated adaptations could be inherited.  He never claimed that assaults on an organism could be inherited.

Now -- someone please step up to the plate and show me where the scumbags in evolutionary science over the past century have had the balls to disprove Lamarck by way of controlled experiment.  This would be so EASY to test and disprove.   Now show me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Troll.

Answer some of your own outstanding questions before posing more.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the scumbags in evolutionary science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



As opposed to the scumbags in real-estate sitting bored in a cubicle? Do you have a particularly unsatisfying life SuperSport? Education is the way forward, break out of that cubicle.

Why don't you instead prove that Lamarck is right, instead of asking us to prove he's wrong.

After that's done that I'll prove unicorns don't exist.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 19 2007,08:40

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,08:38)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 19 2007,08:37)
< Lamarckian ideas of inheritance > fell out of favor not just because of experiments, but because Mendelian genetics provided a better explanation of the phenomena of interest. When one mechanism displaces another on grounds of explanatory power, the consensus view shifts not so much because "disproof" of the older view is offered, but because the older view lacks properties that the new one provides.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"falling out of favor" is not science....it's opinion and guesswork.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you've proven you know nothing about science, cubicle boy.

About those toxic-waste eating bacteria that still ain't dead...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 19 2007,08:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"falling out of favor" is not science....it's opinion and guesswork.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, opinion and guesswork is a good description of science, when one adds the ingredient of paying attention to the empirical evidence. The basis of science is intersubjective experience and criticism, which is that way because personal sensory experience is subjective, but we have no other means of approaching objectivity. Making sure that the same experience holds for many observers tends to eliminate the subjectiveness of the experience, and get us closer to what we assume is an objective view of the phenomena in question.

For the particular case in question, the supplantation of Lamarckism with Mendelianism, one notes that Mendelian geneticists provided copious quantities of experimental evidence demonstrating that their ideas had predictive power. This is precisely what Lamarckian ideas of inheritance lacked. Opinion and guesswork? Sure, but backed by lots and lots of generations of various short-generation time animals and plants showing that Mendelian ideas of inheritance worked and explained the phenomena of interest.
Posted by: guthrie on Sep. 19 2007,09:02

If supersport is a troll, as seems the case, I think we can safely say that Creationists may be stupid, but not so stupid as to want to come here.  That leaves as an option a cruising posse of AtBc people, who would descend upon some place with a creationist or two, and demonstrate the errors of their ways, then leave again.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,09:02

there are actually subjects on here that have nothing to do with my original challenge....most of it actually is off topic from my first post.
------------------
1) Show me one instance where science transplanted a group of animals to a new environment and observed them for multiple generations to see if new traits quickly/purposefully/nonrandomly emerged.

2) Show me one instance of science testing/disproving lamarckian-style inheritance.

3) Show me one instance (controlled experiment) where science set out to prove/disprove darwinism on real animals.

4) Show me one instance where science dated a dinosaur bone with carbon 14 to rule out recent existence.

5) Show me one instance of an evolutionist (any book, any website) admitting that the change we see in the field and fossil record may not be "evolution" (aka RMNS)at all, but simply individual organisms' ability to utilize their built-in genetic diversity to adapt themselves to their local environment – that selection may not have anything to do with phenotypic change over time.

6) Show me even one instance of the National media coming out with a story that questioned Darwinism or explained the other side of the debate.

7) Show me one instance of a genetic mistake (random mutation/copying error) that that created a new, beneficial body part.

8.) Show me one instance where an accumulation of mutations created a new species.

9) Show me one instance of a mutation that formed a new organ or limb.

10.)  Show me one example ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. )

11) Show me one instance of natural selection proven by controlled experiment. Heck, show me one controlled experiment attempting to test natural selection at all, regardless of the outcome.

12) Show me one instance of a new gene forming that codes a new protein and performs a new function.

13) Show me one instance of a new developmental pathway forming.

14) Show me in the fossil record evidence of millions of bizarre, experimental phenotypic freaks and monstrosities that no-doubt had to occur if variation arose randomly. Or, Show me any from today. (I'm not talking defects...I'm talking new body parts that appear in weird places for no reason...)

15) Explain to me why we don’t see humans or dogs or alligators with accidental wings forming. (If the possibility was there for random mutations to produce wings on reptiles or mammals in the past, then it should also be happening now.)

16) show me a set of skeletons that transition from ape to man by way of small modifications.

17) Show me how a cell could evolve randomly:

Carl Sagan, the modern-day evolutionary spokesperson has admitted: "The information content of a simple cell (is) comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica."

18. Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome:

< http://youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g >

Bonus question: (25 pts extra credit) -- Show me the origin of anything.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,09:03

details shmetails, rat tails, just shut up before I cut them off with a carving knife!  You'll never convince me!  Never!  Never!

[/supersport]
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,09:05

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 19 2007,08:49)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

"falling out of favor" is not science....it's opinion and guesswork.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, opinion and guesswork is a good description of science, when one adds the ingredient of paying attention to the empirical evidence. The basis of science is intersubjective experience and criticism, which is that way because personal sensory experience is subjective, but we have no other means of approaching objectivity. Making sure that the same experience holds for many observers tends to eliminate the subjectiveness of the experience, and get us closer to what we assume is an objective view of the phenomena in question.

For the particular case in question, the supplantation of Lamarckism with Mendelianism, one notes that Mendelian geneticists provided copious quantities of experimental evidence demonstrating that their ideas had predictive power. This is precisely what Lamarckian ideas of inheritance lacked. Opinion and guesswork? Sure, but backed by lots and lots of generations of various short-generation time animals and plants showing that Mendelian ideas of inheritance worked and explained the phenomena of interest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


to me science should not be about a theory -- but about hard evidence.  The idea that acquired traits can or cannot be inherited is so easily testable that there is simply no reason no one in science would have done so by now.  If nothing else -- just to end the debate.  But I think it's pretty obvious that since no one in science has bothered to do this type of experiment, scientists have no real desire to uncover the truth about the matter.  It's easier to just look the other way and play dumb.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 19 2007,09:08

It may surprise some of you to know that I fully support Supersport's position that all life originated with and evolved by means of mind. I've articulated my position < here >. Supersport will agree with me when I say,

"It should be clear from the above that a calculus of Rodins, Thinks, Poofs and a completed, empirical Thing Theory promises to dissolve some of the knottiest problems in biology today. For example, we may now confidently sketch the origins of life on earth: a Rodin or Rodins originated a complex Think-Structure that gave rise to both simultaneous and sequential Poofs that created the first biological Thing, detonating life on earth. All that remains is to supply the details.  

In the future we hope to infer the properties of agentic Rodin or Rodins themselves, by tracing Think-Poof-Thing pathways much as the electrodynamic properties of elementary particles may be inferred from the ephemeral trails left within a cloud chamber. We anticipate that the biology of the 22nd century will be characterized by Rodin simulations, the computational modeling of Biological Think-Structures, the detection and deconstruction of Poof-efficacy at the Think-Thing interface, and a completed Thing Theory. Ultimately we may see the triumph of what has been derisively called the "Big Think" theory of the origins of the universe.  We may also confidently anticipate that a bankrupt Darwinism with truly be a “think” of the past."
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,09:08

Alright, I'll bite.  But you have to trade me out answer for answer.  I'm going to attempt to answer this question:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But in order to do so, I'll need to know what you mean by "information".  How do I measure this information, what units do I use?

If you can provide this information, I will answer your question with my next comment to the thread.

Eagerly awaiting new knowledge.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,09:10

by the way, I didn't realize this forum had specific rules on posting limits.   Other forums allow multiple new posts, if desired.   So I apologize for going against the rules.  I'll just stick to this thread in the future.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,09:12

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 19 2007,09:08)
It may surprise some of you to know that I fully support Supersport's position that all life originated with and evolved by means of mind. I've articulated my position < here >. Supersport will agree with me when I say,

"It should be clear from the above that a calculus of Rodins, Thinks, Poofs and a completed, empirical Thing Theory promises to dissolve some of the knottiest problems in biology today. For example, we may now confidently sketch the origins of life on earth: a Rodin or Rodins originated a complex Think-Structure that gave rise to both simultaneous and sequential Poofs that created the first biological Thing, detonating life on earth. All that remains is to supply the details.  

In the future we hope to infer the properties of agentic Rodin or Rodins themselves, by tracing Think-Poof-Thing pathways much as the electrodynamic properties of elementary particles may be inferred from the ephemeral trails left within a cloud chamber. We anticipate that the biology of the 22nd century will be characterized by Rodin simulations, the computational modeling of Biological Think-Structures, the detection and deconstruction of Poof-efficacy at the Think-Thing interface, and a completed Thing Theory. Ultimately we may see the triumph of what has been derisively called the "Big Think" theory of the origins of the universe.  We may also confidently anticipate that a bankrupt Darwinism with truly be a “think” of the past."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


interesting...so what do you disagree with me about?  If you think the mind is the source of life and diversity, what is your take on how life changes?...ie mechanism.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,09:12

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,09:12)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 19 2007,09:08)
It may surprise some of you to know that I fully support Supersport's position that all life originated with and evolved by means of mind. I've articulated my position < here >. Supersport will agree with me when I say,

"It should be clear from the above that a calculus of Rodins, Thinks, Poofs and a completed, empirical Thing Theory promises to dissolve some of the knottiest problems in biology today. For example, we may now confidently sketch the origins of life on earth: a Rodin or Rodins originated a complex Think-Structure that gave rise to both simultaneous and sequential Poofs that created the first biological Thing, detonating life on earth. All that remains is to supply the details.  

In the future we hope to infer the properties of agentic Rodin or Rodins themselves, by tracing Think-Poof-Thing pathways much as the electrodynamic properties of elementary particles may be inferred from the ephemeral trails left within a cloud chamber. We anticipate that the biology of the 22nd century will be characterized by Rodin simulations, the computational modeling of Biological Think-Structures, the detection and deconstruction of Poof-efficacy at the Think-Thing interface, and a completed Thing Theory. Ultimately we may see the triumph of what has been derisively called the "Big Think" theory of the origins of the universe.  We may also confidently anticipate that a bankrupt Darwinism with truly be a “think” of the past."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


interesting...so what do you disagree with me about?  If you think the mind is the source of life and diversity, what is your take on how life changes?...ie mechanism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you can't be serious?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,09:15

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,09:08)
Alright, I'll bite.  But you have to trade me out answer for answer.  I'm going to attempt to answer this question:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But in order to do so, I'll need to know what you mean by "information".  How do I measure this information, what units do I use?

If you can provide this information, I will answer your question with my next comment to the thread.

Eagerly awaiting new knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's just the thing...

Evolutionists have long said that mutations can create new information. Whether or not this is true remains to be seen. But here are 3 considerations:

1) For one thing, nobody seems to be able to define (or agree on) what new information actually is. For example, is it "new" information if an animal loses information and then gains it back? Evos says yes, logic says no.

2) whether or not mutations create new information is meaningless in the grand scheme of evolution if this new information does not translate into new, useful morphology. Science has never show this to be possible.

3) we all agree that a mutation happens within the confines of an individual....but evolutionists are saying that this individual must somehow be blessed with more information after the mutation than he had before the mutation. Yet, who's to say that this "new" information wasn't just lurking somewhere beneath the surface, lying in wait for some future need? How could you prove it one way or another? The answer is not scientific, it's more of a guess.

But I have a question about this third concept. I would like to know, if a mutation does hypothetically create new information, from where does this new information come? The tooth fairy's magic wand? If it came from within the animal, there's no sense in saying the information is "new," right?

Many evos would say it's meaningless where the information comes from. But I actually think it's quite meaningful because if evolutionists cannot prove to me that the "new" information did not already reside in the organism, and they cannot show me from where it came as an alternative, then it's pretty reasonable to assume this "new" information is probably not "new" at all.

It's also meaningful to know where this new information came from because ToE says the genome of each creature acts independently of the environment. Likewise, the genome does not "read" the environment, nor does it act upon it, nor does it take information from it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 19 2007,09:18

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,09:15)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,09:08)
Alright, I'll bite.  But you have to trade me out answer for answer.  I'm going to attempt to answer this question:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But in order to do so, I'll need to know what you mean by "information".  How do I measure this information, what units do I use?

If you can provide this information, I will answer your question with my next comment to the thread.

Eagerly awaiting new knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's just the thing...

Evolutionists have long said that mutations can create new information. Whether or not this is true remains to be seen. But here are 3 considerations:

1) For one thing, nobody seems to be able to define (or agree on) what new information actually is. For example, is it "new" information if an animal loses information and then gains it back? Evos says yes, logic says no.

2) whether or not mutations create new information is meaningless in the grand scheme of evolution if this new information does not translate into new, useful morphology. Science has never show this to be possible.

3) we all agree that a mutation happens within the confines of an individual....but evolutionists are saying that this individual must somehow be blessed with more information after the mutation than he had before the mutation. Yet, who's to say that this "new" information wasn't just lurking somewhere beneath the surface, lying in wait for some future need? How could you prove it one way or another? The answer is not scientific, it's more of a guess.

But I have a question about this third concept. I would like to know, if a mutation does hypothetically create new information, from where does this new information come? The tooth fairy's magic wand? If it came from within the animal, there's no sense in saying the information is "new," right?

Many evos would say it's meaningless where the information comes from. But I actually think it's quite meaningful because if evolutionists cannot prove to me that the "new" information did not already reside in the organism, and they cannot show me from where it came as an alternative, then it's pretty reasonable to assume this "new" information is probably not "new" at all.

It's also meaningful to know where this new information came from because ToE says the genome of each creature acts independently of the environment. Likewise, the genome does not "read" the environment, nor does it act upon it, nor does it take information from it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me re-phrase the question:

How do I measure this information, what units do I use?

Don't avoid it. What units are the "information" you speak of measured in?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,09:19

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 19 2007,09:18)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,09:15)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,09:08)
Alright, I'll bite.  But you have to trade me out answer for answer.  I'm going to attempt to answer this question:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But in order to do so, I'll need to know what you mean by "information".  How do I measure this information, what units do I use?

If you can provide this information, I will answer your question with my next comment to the thread.

Eagerly awaiting new knowledge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that's just the thing...

Evolutionists have long said that mutations can create new information. Whether or not this is true remains to be seen. But here are 3 considerations:

1) For one thing, nobody seems to be able to define (or agree on) what new information actually is. For example, is it "new" information if an animal loses information and then gains it back? Evos says yes, logic says no.

2) whether or not mutations create new information is meaningless in the grand scheme of evolution if this new information does not translate into new, useful morphology. Science has never show this to be possible.

3) we all agree that a mutation happens within the confines of an individual....but evolutionists are saying that this individual must somehow be blessed with more information after the mutation than he had before the mutation. Yet, who's to say that this "new" information wasn't just lurking somewhere beneath the surface, lying in wait for some future need? How could you prove it one way or another? The answer is not scientific, it's more of a guess.

But I have a question about this third concept. I would like to know, if a mutation does hypothetically create new information, from where does this new information come? The tooth fairy's magic wand? If it came from within the animal, there's no sense in saying the information is "new," right?

Many evos would say it's meaningless where the information comes from. But I actually think it's quite meaningful because if evolutionists cannot prove to me that the "new" information did not already reside in the organism, and they cannot show me from where it came as an alternative, then it's pretty reasonable to assume this "new" information is probably not "new" at all.

It's also meaningful to know where this new information came from because ToE says the genome of each creature acts independently of the environment. Likewise, the genome does not "read" the environment, nor does it act upon it, nor does it take information from it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me re-phrase the question:

How do I measure this information, what units do I use?

Don't avoid it. What units are the "information" you speak of measured in?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you can't!   So who's to say one way or the other if information is being added or not?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 19 2007,09:20

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,10:12)
you can't be serious?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Keep out of this, Blip. We're finally getting down to some serious science that recognizes the power of MIND. Your negative materialism has nothing to day about the Think-Thing interface.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,09:21

Whoa!  Stop!  Stop!

You are suffering from Creationist Blabbering Syndrome.  The easy cure for this is to Stop!  Wait!  Take one question at a time.

If you are truly interested in furthering your own knowledge and about educating others, you will not bounce willy-nilly about the English language, posting questions and tangential topics without coming to a conclusion about the first one.

Slow Down!

The topic at hand is

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's resolve this before moving on, okay?

We need to agree on what information is.  You seem to think that an increase in information requires a morphological change?  Is this a correct reading of your thoughts?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,09:23

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 19 2007,09:20)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,10:12)
you can't be serious?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Keep out of this, Blip. We're finally getting down to some serious science that recognizes the power of MIND. Your negative materialism has nothing to day about the Think-Thing interface.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


cool bill...I've got to head out..but I'd like to explore this with you in the near future.   Take care.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,09:24

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,09:23)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 19 2007,09:20)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,10:12)
you can't be serious?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Keep out of this, Blip. We're finally getting down to some serious science that recognizes the power of MIND. Your negative materialism has nothing to day about the Think-Thing interface.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


cool bill...I've got to head out..but I'd like to explore this with you in the near future.   Take care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you can't be serious?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 19 2007,09:24

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,10:23)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 19 2007,09:20)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,10:12)
you can't be serious?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Keep out of this, Blip. We're finally getting down to some serious science that recognizes the power of MIND. Your negative materialism has nothing to day about the Think-Thing interface.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


cool bill...I've got to head out..but I'd like to explore this with you in the near future.   Take care.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Case closed.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,09:26

Wow, Bill.  You make a great straight man; even if he's not serious, that made coffee come out my nose--twice.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 19 2007,09:30

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,09:19)
you can't!   So who's to say one way or the other if information is being added or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So what you are really saying when you ask


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



is that no matter what examples you get, you cannot decide if they are true or not because information is not defined.

So why do you keep asking? How can you judge one way or the other?

So, Cubicle-Boy, how's the real-estate market going? Shame you don't have a real job. Is that why you are here, jealous of all the fancy-pants scientsts doing real, meaningful work.

C'mon Cubicle-boy. Show us what you are made of.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,09:35

The nylon bug is often brought up by evos as an example of "new" information resulting from a mutation. I'm not here to debate whether this is new information or not. As far I'm concerned the idea that the body can generate new information is fine by me.

So assuming that the nylon bug DOES generate new information, let's play a game.

Let's say I'm thinking about the number 8. I'm thinking about the number 8 because I woke up in the morning at exactly 8:00 a.m....therefore the number 8 is stuck in my head all day....at the end of the day I write the number 8 down on a piece of paper.

Next day rolls around, and instead of waking up at 8:00 I wake up at 9:00....therefore I have the number 9 in my head all day....so then I think about the number 9 all day and then write that down on a piece of paper

Question: is this an increase of information? Why or why not? If so, where did the information come from....if not, why not?

It seems to me that there is simply no way to ever tell if information is "new" or not because ultimately nobody knows where information comes from. Coming at it logically, I would say information comes from the mind, but that's just me....I think the mind is in control of all of biology, including the genome. Materialists, however, ignore the mind when it comes to biology and evolution and instead give all the credit to chance and randomness. Ultimately then we all believe in Ex nihilo -- we all believe everything came from nothing...some of us, however, believe there was a cause behind the nothingness changing to something-ness.

So to answer my own question, I would say that going from "8" to "9" may be an increase of information, but that's only because the mind is capable of acquiring more information. Surely, for example you've acquired lots of information over the course of your lfetime -- you've got much more now than you had when you were in grade school. Likewise biology is the same. Flu shots work like that....give yourself a flu shot and your immune system soon reads this information, remembers it and is able to put this information to good use by developing resistance.

Ultimately, the question as to whether or not new information arises by way of mutations is meaningless because I would say the genome is just a physical manifestation of the mind, which is capable of acquiring new information.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 19 2007,09:37

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,15:35)
The nylon bug is often brought up by evos as an example of "new" information resulting from a mutation. I'm not here to debate whether this is new information or not. As far I'm concerned the idea that the body can generate new information is fine by me.

So assuming that the nylon bug DOES generate new information, let's play a game.

Let's say I'm thinking about the number 8. I'm thinking about the number 8 because I woke up in the morning at exactly 8:00 a.m....therefore the number 8 is stuck in my head all day....at the end of the day I write the number 8 down on a piece of paper.

Next day rolls around, and instead of waking up at 8:00 I wake up at 9:00....therefore I have the number 9 in my head all day....so then I think about the number 9 all day and then write that down on a piece of paper

Question: is this an increase of information? Why or why not? If so, where did the information come from....if not, why not?

It seems to me that there is simply no way to ever tell if information is "new" or not because ultimately nobody knows where information comes from. Coming at it logically, I would say information comes from the mind, but that's just me....I think the mind is in control of all of biology, including the genome. Materialists, however, ignore the mind when it comes to biology and evolution and instead give all the credit to chance and randomness. Ultimately then we all believe in Ex nihilo -- we all believe everything came from nothing...some of us, however, believe there was a cause behind the nothingness changing to something-ness.

So to answer my own question, I would say that going from "8" to "9" may be an increase of information, but that's only because the mind is capable of acquiring more information. Surely, for example you've acquired lots of information over the course of your lfetime -- you've got much more now than you had when you were in grade school. Likewise biology is the same. Flu shots work like that....give yourself a flu shot and your immune system soon reads this information, remembers it and is able to put this information to good use by developing resistance.

Ultimately, the question as to whether or not new information arises by way of mutations is meaningless because I would say the genome is just a physical manifestation of the mind, which is capable of acquiring new information.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you aren't going from a base of 8 up to 9, you're starting again from scratch.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,09:42

I thought you were leaving.

But, since you're still here, can we resolve this issue:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

?
Is Bill right when he says your question is meaningless because there is no answer you will accept because you don't know what is meant by "information"?

Let's resolve one issue at a time.  If we don;t do this, you just continue to look like a moron who is not interested in the least about education.  Surely you are interested in learing and teaching, right?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 19 2007,09:45

Splurty has spamed this list of questions all over the intertubes.  He merely ignor replies, or engages warp 7 goalposts.

in responce to spurtstuf's question #1



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Island Biogeography of Populations: An Introduced Species Transforms Survival Patterns"
   Thomas W. Schoener, Jonathan B. Losos, David A. Spiller
   Science 16 December 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5755, pp. 1807 - 1809

   Population phenomena, which provide much of the underlying basis for the theoretical structure of island biogeography, have received little direct study. We determined a key population trait—survival—in the Bahamian lizard Anolis sagrei on islands with an experimentally introduced predatory lizard and on neighboring unmanipulated islands. On unmanipulated islands, survival declined with several variables, most notably vegetation height: The island with the shortest vegetation had nearly the highest survival recorded for any lizard. On islands with the introduced predator, which forages mostly on the ground, A. sagrei shifted to taller vegetation; unlike on unmanipulated islands, its survival was very low on islands with the shortest vegetation but was higher on the others. Thus, species introduction radically changed a resident species' relation of survival to a key island-biogeographical variable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There is also;



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Evolutionary Biology: Catching Lizards in the Act of Adapting"
   Virgina Morrell
   Science 2 May 1997:
   Vol. 276. no. 5313, pp. 682 - 683

   Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologists transplanted small populations of Anolis sagrei lizards from Staniel Cay in the Bahamas to several nearby tiny islands, all of which had been lizard-free. The researchers expected the reptiles to go extinct, but by 10 to 14 years later, the animals appeared to be undergoing the kind of body changes that in time could turn each island's population into a separate species. If the changes are genetic, the study would be strong evidence that isolated populations diverge by natural selection, not by genetic drift, as some theorists have argued.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which was a discussion of :



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Natural selection out on a limb"
   Ted J. Case
   Nature 387, 15 - 16 (01 May 1997)

   and

"Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards"
   Jonathan B. Losos, Kenneth I. Warheitt, Thomas W. Schoener
   Nature 387, 70 - 73 (01 May 1997)

   If colonizing populations are displaced into an environment that is often very different from that of their source1, they are particularly likely to diverge evolutionarily, the more so because they are usually small and thus likely to change by genetic restructuring or drift2,3. Despite its fundamental importance, the consequence of colonization for traits of founding populations have primarily been surmised from static present-day distributions1,2,4,5, laboratory experiments6 and the outcomes of haphazard human introductions, rather than from replicated field experiments. Here we report long-term results of just such an experimental study. Populations of the lizard Anolis sagrei, introduced onto small islands from a nearby source, differentiated from each other rapidly over a 10–14-year period. The more different the recipient island's vegetation from that of the source, the greater the magnitude of differentiation. Further, the direction of differentiation followed an expectation based on the evolutionary diversification of insular Anolis over its entire geographic range. In addition to providing a glimpse of adaptive dynamics in one of the most extensive generic radiations on earth, the results lend support to the general argument that environment determines the evolution of morphology.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 19 2007,09:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Show me one instance where science transplanted a group of animals to a new environment and observed them for multiple generations to see if new traits quickly/purposefully/nonrandomly emerged.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Artificial selection. Thousands of experiments. Use google.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

2) Show me one instance of science testing/disproving lamarckian-style inheritance.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The real deal would be to find a instance where Lamarckian style inheritance is observed. It's up to you.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

3) Show me one instance (controlled experiment) where science set out to prove/disprove darwinism on real animals.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thousands of fitness measurement. Use google


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

4) Show me one instance where science dated a dinosaur bone with carbon 14 to rule out recent existence.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

C14 can't date dinosaur bones.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

5) Show me one instance of an evolutionist (any book, any website) admitting that the change we see in the field and fossil record may not be "evolution" (aka RMNS)at all, but simply individual organisms' ability to utilize their built-in genetic diversity to adapt themselves to their local environment – that selection may not have anything to do with phenotypic change over time.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

There isn't such instance because this would be nonsense.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

6) Show me even one instance of the National media coming out with a story that questioned Darwinism or explained the other side of the debate.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Perhaps you can find it yourself. You're the expert in creationism after all. I recall a documentary on the French/german chanel "arte" that questionned "darwinism" in the evolution of humans. I can find a link.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

7) Show me one instance of a genetic mistake (random mutation/copying error) that that created a new, beneficial body part.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

A new body parts is not the result of a single "genetic mistake".


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

8.) Show me one instance where an accumulation of mutations created a new species.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hundreds of papers on the genetics of speciation. Use google "speciation genes".


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

9) Show me one instance of a mutation that formed a new organ or limb.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

See answer to question 8


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

10.)  Show me one example ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. )

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Define "morphological addition"? For instance, what do humans have that chimps don't?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

11) Show me one instance of natural selection proven by controlled experiment. Heck, show me one controlled experiment attempting to test natural selection at all, regardless of the outcome.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

See answer to question 3.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

12) Show me one instance of a new gene forming that codes a new protein and performs a new function.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Gene duplications and divergence. Hundreds of studies. Use google.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

13) Show me one instance of a new developmental pathway forming.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

14) Show me in the fossil record evidence of millions of bizarre, experimental phenotypic freaks and monstrosities that no-doubt had to occur if variation arose randomly. Or, Show me any from today. (I'm not talking defects...I'm talking new body parts that appear in weird places for no reason...)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That's not a prediction of the theory.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

15) Explain to me why we don’t see humans or dogs or alligators with accidental wings forming. (If the possibility was there for random mutations to produce wings on reptiles or mammals in the past, then it should also be happening now.)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

See answer to question 14


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

16) show me a set of skeletons that transition from ape to man by way of small modifications.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Thousands of fossils. Use google.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

17) Show me how a cell could evolve randomly:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

18. Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Define genetic "information".
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 19 2007,10:21

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 19 2007,05:29)
I pointed out bacteria can thrive on so called "toxic waste" and you've yet to comment on that fact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's just hope they don't turn into teenage mutant ninja bacteria...
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 19 2007,10:31

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,09:05)
The idea that acquired traits can or cannot be inherited is so easily testable that there is simply no reason no one in science would have done so by now.  If nothing else -- just to end the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If inhertitance of acquired traits was a normal occurrence like you propose, the effects would have been noticed during testing of genetic theory. Separate tests specifically for it aren't necessary.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 19 2007,12:00

RBill

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA

hey supersport you and skeptic should get together and work out this mind/soul thing.

Where is Louis?
Where is Lenny?
Where the hell are my keys?  
I've now laughed my ass off.  Think-Thing interface oh shit.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 19 2007,12:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If inhertitance of acquired traits was a normal occurrence like you propose, the effects would have been noticed during testing of genetic theory. Separate tests specifically for it aren't necessary.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yeah, exactly.
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 19 2007,12:12

SS, I think you might accidentally be heading in the right general direction but I need to know for sure.  Please get specific and expand on this idea that the mind influences genetic variation and environmental adaptation.  What are the mechanisms behind this or the evidence you believe that points you in this direction?  IMO, you use of the term may be misleading but let's see how you frame it.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,13:09

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 19 2007,12:12)
SS, I think you might accidentally be heading in the right general direction but I need to know for sure.  Please get specific and expand on this idea that the mind influences genetic variation and environmental adaptation.  What are the mechanisms behind this or the evidence you believe that points you in this direction?  IMO, you use of the term may be misleading but let's see how you frame it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think real evolution, at least the evolution (ie..change over time) of phenotype has nothing to do with genes.  Instead, change is just an adaptive response from within each organism.  Real evolution, the heritable kind, happens during development.  You can see a perfect example here:

< http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover > (page 2)

"To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations"

Therefore, if a population of fleas all experience the same environmental cue (predators in this case) then the whole population will emerge with the same trait...(new spines in this case).   Do you thus agree that this could very well give the illusion of evolution if the experiment was not done in a controlled way?....if scientists had merely observed a population of fleas one year, and then came back a few years later only to notice that the spines had grown, would it not be easy to blindly attribute this change to RMNS?  Of course!  And that's exactly what has happened to the peppered moth, Darwin's finches and Dr. GH's lizards.  Go ahead, look up those types of lizard Dr. GH was talking about and you'll find that natural selection was actually not the reason they changed -- phenotypic plasticity was.  

What is the mechanism here?  I don't know -- you tell me...how can you put a "mechanism" on the mind?  The mind is not definable and is certainly not a machine.  The mind is not a material substance but a mental/spiritual process.

Ultimatley, natural selection relies on pools of random genetic variation (so it can build up a population genetically)....but I simply do not believe in NS because I do not believe there are such things as pools of random genetic variation because, for one thing, it turns out that genes don't define/dictate morphological traits, but also, each creature in a population is going to be experiencing the same cues in which to adapt to....therefore evolution will happen quickly, purposefully, horizontally across the population.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 19 2007,13:26

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,13:09)
....therefore evolution will happen quickly, purposefully, horizontally across the population.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why are there still monkeys?   ;)
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,14:14

Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 19 2007,13:26)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,13:09)
....therefore evolution will happen quickly, purposefully, horizontally across the population.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why are there still monkeys?   ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


because creatures can't change into something they aren't.  A worm, for example, could never change into a centipede because a centipede is not a worm with legs.   These two creatures are completely different.  What are the limits to change?   I don't know....that would be an excellent thing for science to experiment with...unfortunately, however, they never have....so who knows.   A human, for example, if forced to live in or near the water, might be able to adapt to that new environment phenotypically -- but even if that were to happen, humans would still, and always be, humans.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,14:18

Oooooohhhh!  I got one!

How 'bout this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm pretty sure this is unresolved.  You DO want to resolve it, don't you?

Or are your pants just full of shit?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 19 2007,14:29

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,14:14)
   
Quote (carlsonjok @ Sep. 19 2007,13:26)
     
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,13:09)
....therefore evolution will happen quickly, purposefully, horizontally across the population.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then why are there still monkeys?   ;)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


because creatures can't change into something they aren't.  A worm, for example, could never change into a centipede because a centipede is not a worm with legs.   These two creatures are completely different.  What are the limits to change?   I don't know....that would be an excellent thing for science to experiment with...unfortunately, however, they never have....so who knows.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow. The ark must have been crammed to the rafters then.  Unless Noah had some kind of "Honey, I Shrunk every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort" technology.  
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A human, for example, if forced to live in or near the water, might be able to adapt to that new environment phenotypically -- but even if that were to happen, humans would still, and always be, humans.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But, what about a monkey living near water?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,14:32

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,14:18)
Oooooohhhh!  I got one!

How 'bout this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Show me some instances of mutations that add information to the genome
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm pretty sure this is unresolved.  You DO want to resolve it, don't you?

Or are your pants just full of shit?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


just a hint, if you care to have a discussion with me you'll stop acting like a rabid dog.  Once you show you can act like an adult and not like 12-year-old I'll respond to you.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,14:37

Interesting.  This coming from a person who instead of answering questions, shotguns a bunch of random bits of googled information, demands that all of them be answered and when questioned about them, shotguns another load of unrelated stuff.

Who's the 12 year old?

Adults know that a discussion progresses in a logical order.  Would you care to explain the logic of your comments?

Until then, how about resolving this issue:

1.  Either your question about genetic information cannot be answered because the definition of genetic information is unknown

OR

2.  you can give us this definition and the question is meaningful.

Which side do you come down on?

Notice that this will require you to type one of the following things:

(1) or (2)

That's not too hard, is it?
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,14:50

Wait.  I think I know what you mean now.  You think it is childish to expect answers to a question.  You don't think it is a reasonable thing to provide other people with your superior knowledge.

I'm sorry, I'll go and try to find someone who knows enough to share.
Posted by: dochocson on Sep. 19 2007,14:54

Man, you cannot buy this kind of entertainment. Now that I'm out of popcorn, I have to ask:

supersport: Does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 19 2007,14:57

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,14:09)
I think real evolution, at least the evolution (ie..change over time) of phenotype has nothing to do with genes...blah blah blah. Blah.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Supersport, you need to understand that, while you are entitled to pleasure yourself with your idiosyncratic thoughts on these matters, yours is a stance of abject and determined ignorance both of the biological and evolutionary sciences and of the arduous efforts of thousands of scientists working around the world to better characterize and understand the history of life on earth. The paranoid and conspiratorial world inhabited by crackpot-creationist-gadflies such as yourself, a world in which Darwinists are desperately striving to hide embarrassing truths of which you are champions, is a self-aggrandizing masturbatory fantasy of your own creation. There is zero resemblance and zero dialog between your 'gotcha' style contrived challenges and the real efforts of real scientists and real scientific communities as they attempt to build better approximations of the truth of things - communities that take no note of your ramblings, other than for sport. This is because approaching the truth is not among your goals. The horseshit you (and your ilk) hurl from your parents' basements is tiresome and empty. You are not a participant in serious discourse on these matters. No one here really gives a rat's ass about what you think.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,14:57

Quote (dochocson @ Sep. 19 2007,14:54)
Man, you cannot buy this kind of entertainment. Now that I'm out of popcorn, I have to ask:

supersport: Does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the earth?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how far away are the stars?
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 19 2007,15:04

So what that article is saying is that genes have what amounts to on/off switches that can also be passed on to descendants, sometimes with the setting left intact? And those switches can sometimes be flipped by environmental factors?

Is that involved in species that alternate between two or three forms over a number of generations?

Sounds like researchers might have to sequence the DNA before and after to be sure if a non-transitory change occurred.

Henry
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 19 2007,15:11

Am I missing something, or did Supersport absolutely never acknowledge this?:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment during a boring cubicle job in "real estate".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,15:13

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2007,15:11)
Am I missing something, or did Supersport absolutely never acknowledge this?:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment during a boring cubicle job in "real estate".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, he did also ignore < this. >
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 19 2007,15:23

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 18 2007,09:14)
I wish someone would sue spineless invertebrate's
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you sue congress?
Posted by: Steviepinhead on Sep. 19 2007,15:40

SS:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A worm, for example, could never change into a centipede because a centipede is not a worm with legs.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, uh, actually--I hate to be the first to break this to you, if I am--but a centipede is basically a worm with legs and an exoskeleton.  Yeah, it gets more complicated than that, for sure, but at a certain level of reduction, it's still true.

Even more do I hate to break this to you, but YOU are, on some sufficiently-essential level, just a large, highly-cephalized worm with limbs and some internal mineralized structural supports...

It's like those worms are always sayin': "If worms, centipedes, and humans all arose from a common ancestor, then why are there still centipedes and humans?"
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 19 2007,15:43

Quote (slpage @ Sep. 18 2007,18:04)
Ah, Superspammer finds yet another place to regurgipost.

So, Sport - have you figgered out where RNA transcripts come from?

Know what "information" is?

Read my post explaining how Pellionisz isn't really telling you the whole truth about junkDNA?

Nah - you don't read stuff....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dr. Page!  How you be?

At least no chance that the AtBC regulars might take sporty seriously.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 19 2007,15:47

Quote (slpage @ Sep. 18 2007,18:39)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 18 2007,16:07)
supersport:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if evos can say "genes" or the "genome" get passed down without any proof then I can say the mind can get passed down.  Neither is science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, when your mommy and daddy touched their thingies together, they really put their minds and bodies in mommiy's woowoo, not a sperm and an egg each with half of the diploid complement of chromosomes?

I'm shocked!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow, now that's a head job, or a Head Case.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,16:24

delete.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 19 2007,16:33

Not that I'm not dazzled, but the link doesn't work.

And you only answered half the question.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,16:38

This is your house?



Does your non-cubicle job teach you how to share photos?

I also see you're using the tried and true "argument by house size".  Surely that means your science is better than mine.

Now, how about that genetic information thing?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,16:39

delete.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,16:42

Very nice.  Looks big enough for your super-duper, top secret, astrophysics lab.  You know, the one in which you figured out what genetic information is.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,16:46

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,16:42)
Very nice.  Looks big enough for your super-duper, top secret, astrophysics lab.  You know, the one in which you figured out what genetic information is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already know what it is: a physical manifestation of the mind.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 19 2007,16:49

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,16:46)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,16:42)
Very nice.  Looks big enough for your super-duper, top secret, astrophysics lab.  You know, the one in which you figured out what genetic information is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already know what it is: a physical manifestation of the mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, make a prediction ;-)

What follows from that that can be verified?

Nothing or something?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 19 2007,16:50

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,22:46)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 19 2007,16:42)
Very nice.  Looks big enough for your super-duper, top secret, astrophysics lab.  You know, the one in which you figured out what genetic information is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I already know what it is: a physical manifestation of the mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidence for that?

No, you can't just say "prove it isn't" because the onus is on YOU.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 19 2007,16:51

Mr Sport

Not to detract from the red-herringness of the discussion about your house, but you seem to have left this question dangling.

You claimed that mental processes can generate life instantly. I asked for some scientific proof (e.g. a peer-reviewed publication or two). So far, you have ignored this completely.

So I'm asking again, and please recall that I did make a good faith effort to answer the question in your O.P.

If mental processes can generate life, surely your mental processes can motivate your fingers to the keyboard and give me the answer to the question above.

Thanks again in advance for ignoring this question.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,16:51

By the way, just to follow up on DR GH's comment about Anolis lizards (and their legs) proving natural selection...he might want to check this out:

< http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/10937208 >

"Species of Anolis lizards that use broad substrates have long legs, which provide enhanced maximal sprint speed, whereas species that use narrow surfaces have short legs, which permit careful movements. We raised hatchling A. sagrei in terraria provided with only broad or only narrow surfaces. At the end of the experiment, lizards in the broad treatment had relatively longer hindlimbs than lizards in the narrow treatment. These results indicate that not only is hindlimb length a plastic trait in these lizards, but that this plasticity leads to the production of phenotypes appropriate to particular environments. Comparison to hindlimb lengths of other Anolis species indicates that the range of plasticity is limited compared to the diversity shown throughout the anole radiation. Nonetheless, this plasticity potentially could have played an important role in the early stages of the Caribbean anole radiation."

So in otherwords, natural selection is hardly proven here, in fact, the evidence shows that simple plasticity is the explanation.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 19 2007,16:52

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,16:39)
< http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/Supersport22/ >

hey you brought it up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lovely. So you're not a redneck landlord. Yay.

You only answered half the question.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,16:54

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2007,16:52)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,16:39)
< http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/Supersport22/ >

hey you brought it up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lovely. So you're not a redneck landlord. Yay.

You only answered half the question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh, but I am....I use both those terms quite loosely though.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 19 2007,16:55

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,16:54)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2007,16:52)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,16:39)
< http://s17.photobucket.com/albums/b96/Supersport22/ >

hey you brought it up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lovely. So you're not a redneck landlord. Yay.

You only answered half the question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh, but I am....I use both those terms quite loosely though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lovely. But you only answered half the question.
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 19 2007,17:11

Now wait a minute, first the mind is undefinable and then genetic information is just the physical manifestation of the mind?  Let's settle on something.  If we're going to apply scientific investigation then we must define it or else leave it as a meta-physical concept and move on to what we can define.  Let's go in one direction but not both.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,17:40

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 19 2007,17:11)
Now wait a minute, first the mind is undefinable and then genetic information is just the physical manifestation of the mind?  Let's settle on something.  If we're going to apply scientific investigation then we must define it or else leave it as a meta-physical concept and move on to what we can define.  Let's go in one direction but not both.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


genes aren't definable either!

< http://www.junkdna.com/#genes_move_over >

"Genes, move over. Ever since the early 1900s, biologists have thought about heredity primarily in terms of genes. Today, they often view genes as compact, information-laden gems hidden among billions of bases of junk DNA. But genes, it turns out, are neither compact nor uniquely important. According to a painstaking new analysis of 1% of the human genome, genes can be sprawling, with far-flung protein-coding and regulatory regions that overlap with other genes... [One can not help thinking about replacing the concept with FractoGene... - AJP]

Given the traditional gene-centric perspective, that finding "is going to be very disturbing to some people," says John Greally, a molecular biologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. On the other hand, says Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in Bethesda, Maryland, "we're beginning to understand the ground rules by which the genome functions."... [Indeed, alongside the $100 M to continue ENCODE, time is to establish, like the "Theoretical Neuroscience Program" with Neural Networks breaking through by the 1980's an "NIH PostGenetics Study Program" to head for algorithmic "ground rules" for genome functions - AJP]

When Alexandre Reymond, a medical geneticist at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, and his colleagues took a close look at the 400 protein-coding genes contained in ENCODE's target DNA, they found additional exons--the regions that code for amino acids--for more than 80%. Many of these newfound exons were located thousands of bases away from the gene's previously known exons, sometimes hidden in another gene. Moreover, some mRNAs were derived from exons belonging to two genes, a finding, says Reymond, that "underscores that we have still not truly answered the question, 'What is a gene?' " In addition, further extending and blurring gene boundaries, ENCODE uncovered a slew of novel "start sites" for genes--the DNA sequences where transcription begins--many located hundreds of thousands of bases away from the known start sites.


[Those who thought the "ENCODE" only blew away "Junk DNA" see now that not only the "antithesis" was incorrect, but the "Gene" thesis was defective, too. Some of us have put forward "Synthesis" - and a select few in algorithmic, i.e. "software enabling" manner. Synthetic Biology and Protein-based Nanotechnology will not make it without proper "software design" ... - comment by Pellionisz, 22nd of June, 2007]"
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 19 2007,18:21

In the event that "delusional" and "schizotypal" seemed a bit strong, here is supersport over at < Richarddawkins.net >:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And so here’s my hypothesis…the following is very important to realize, my friend. I submit that the scientific community is full of individuals who have descended from parents who have “bad seeds” in their reproductive organs. And this group of individuals is composed mostly of habitual liars..which is what lead them to science to begin with...because science is merely an attempt to define the world according to the lie that God was not involved.……Thus, scientistst are no different than lawyers, criminals, politicians, used car salesmen, petty theives, cat burglers, evolutionary fiction writers and other people who make a living by lying. But here’s the thing…..it’s not so much that they INTEND to lie….in fact, I believe it comes so naturally that many might not even realize they’re doing it!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Someone makes the obvious comment:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sport, I am not a psychiatrist, but I recommend you seek one out. Your post concerns me in that it seems to contain many paranoid, delusional and narcissistic elements. Could just be my imagination, of course.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Supe replies:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
hey, either I'm a genius or I need to be admitted to a mental institution. There can be no middle ground.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not seeing the genius thing here.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 19 2007,18:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

hey, either I'm a genius or I need to be admitted to a mental institution. There can be no middle ground.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Sure there can. Maybe you're just bullshitting us. That's 'middle ground'.
Posted by: ofro on Sep. 19 2007,19:46

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,13:09)
Therefore, if a population of fleas all experience the same environmental cue (predators in this case) then the whole population will emerge with the same trait...(new spines in this case).   Do you thus agree that this could very well give the illusion of evolution if the experiment was not done in a controlled way?....if scientists had merely observed a population of fleas one year, and then came back a few years later only to notice that the spines had grown, would it not be easy to blindly attribute this change to RMNS?  Of course!  And that's exactly what has happened to the peppered moth, Darwin's finches and Dr. GH's lizards.  Go ahead, look up those types of lizard Dr. GH was talking about and you'll find that natural selection was actually not the reason they changed -- phenotypic plasticity was.  

What is the mechanism here?  I don't know -- you tell me...how can you put a "mechanism" on the mind?  The mind is not definable and is certainly not a machine.  The mind is not a material substance but a mental/spiritual process.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   
I am a bit confused about what you mean by the mind influencing a phenotypic change.  I always thought that "mind" was associated with animals possessing a rather complex nervous system.  Now you are talking about fleas.

Do fleas have a mind?  Or perhaps bacteria?  At which point in evolution do evolving species acquire a mind?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,21:14

Quote (ofro @ Sep. 19 2007,19:46)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,13:09)
Therefore, if a population of fleas all experience the same environmental cue (predators in this case) then the whole population will emerge with the same trait...(new spines in this case).   Do you thus agree that this could very well give the illusion of evolution if the experiment was not done in a controlled way?....if scientists had merely observed a population of fleas one year, and then came back a few years later only to notice that the spines had grown, would it not be easy to blindly attribute this change to RMNS?  Of course!  And that's exactly what has happened to the peppered moth, Darwin's finches and Dr. GH's lizards.  Go ahead, look up those types of lizard Dr. GH was talking about and you'll find that natural selection was actually not the reason they changed -- phenotypic plasticity was.  

What is the mechanism here?  I don't know -- you tell me...how can you put a "mechanism" on the mind?  The mind is not definable and is certainly not a machine.  The mind is not a material substance but a mental/spiritual process.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   
I am a bit confused about what you mean by the mind influencing a phenotypic change.  I always thought that "mind" was associated with animals possessing a rather complex nervous system.  Now you are talking about fleas.

Do fleas have a mind?  Or perhaps bacteria?  At which point in evolution do evolving species acquire a mind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


all living species have varying degrees of minds and consciousness (yes, even plants) because they were created that way...there was no evolution of a mind.

And before you go off asking me what a mind is, you need to first tell me what it is that makes something alive....what is it that separates life from non-life.  When you show me what that is I'll show you what the mind is.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,21:16

I love this forum -- it digs up old pieces of wisdom that I have long-since forgotten.....this truly is like "This is your life!"

"And so here’s my hypothesis…the following is very important to realize, my friend. I submit that the scientific community is full of individuals who have descended from parents who have “bad seeds” in their reproductive organs. And this group of individuals is composed mostly of habitual liars..which is what lead them to science to begin with...because science is merely an attempt to define the world according to the lie that God was not involved.……Thus, scientistst are no different than lawyers, criminals, politicians, used car salesmen, petty theives, cat burglers, evolutionary fiction writers and other people who make a living by lying. But here’s the thing…..it’s not so much that they INTEND to lie….in fact, I believe it comes so naturally that many might not even realize they’re doing it!"
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 19 2007,21:22

sorry, you can't throw out a statement that the mind is the physical manifestation of the gene and then retreat to an undefinable gene and an undefinable mind shared by a living things, whatever living means.  You actually need to state what you mean when you say mind and living or else your statements have no meaning.  I could easily say that the genome is governed by porridge and you can't prove otherwise cause in reality genome and porridge (and govern, for that matter) have no meaning.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,21:27

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 19 2007,21:22)
sorry, you can't throw out a statement that the mind is the physical manifestation of the gene and then retreat to an undefinable gene and an undefinable mind shared by a living things, whatever living means.  You actually need to state what you mean when you say mind and living or else your statements have no meaning.  I could easily say that the genome is governed by porridge and you can't prove otherwise cause in reality genome and porridge (and govern, for that matter) have no meaning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Life, as well as the mind and consciousness are undefinable, unexplainable and unmeasurable -- all three are non-scientific.  
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 19 2007,22:27

Excellent.  Can the powers that be close this thread now.  It has been firmly established that supersport is a class A jackass who is not interested in adding interesting or new information to this thread in any way.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,22:48

Let me start out by saying that I do not believe in natural selection. I will explain why shortly. But the point of this post is to ask evolutionists what it would take for you not to believe in natural selection. What would qualify as disproof of the theory? Is there such a thing? Let's find out.

First of all, let's look at Charles Darwin's book title...here it is:

On the Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection


Ok. So Darwin, as do his followers, believes that animals evolve BECAUSE of natural selection. It's not enough to say that natural selection merely exists in nature, instead, we are to believe that natural selection is responsible for how animals change.

So for example, the peppered moth was said to have evolved because of their predators (birds) ate a particular color of moth (I think it was white) because it stood out on the tree trunks...and because the white moths were eliminated, this explained the why the dark moths came to dominate the population. It is also important to note that, according to the theory, both the white and dark moths were just random variations within the population.

Ok. So tell me, what is the possible disproof of the preceding scenario that natural selection caused this change in the population? It seems to me that if, instead of NS, the moths all changed individually, purposefully from white to black or if white moths gave birth to black offspring, then the idea that selection caused the change would be disproven.

So in this case, evolutionists would have to believe that if there were no birds or any other predators to consume the ill-adapted moths, that the population would have never evolved, right? The birds caused the evolution, not the moths themselves.

But now, even though science has uncovered a handful of mechanisms that allow for species to self-adapt to changing environments, evolutionists are STILL saying natural selection plays a role. But if the variation comes from within, it wouldn't matter if the birds ate the white moths or not, natural selection would not be the cause of change, which is the whole point of Charles Darwin's book. (Look again at his title, if necessary.)

And, with moths, that's exactly what's happening. See the following site:

 
< http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/moths/polyphenism1.html >   (notice the bottom picture where the moths are able to adapt to changing background surfaces.)

So as someone who doesn't believe in the power of natural selection, what else am I supposed to do to convince you evolutionists that NS has no power to evolve a population other than to point out that individual animals have the ability to adapt themselves? And once you see that individuals are adaptive, how exactly is it that you can still claim that natural selection causes evolution?

Finally, to me, natural selection is something that would most certainly happen if individuals were not adaptive. If there truly were pools of random genetic variation in populations, and if this genetic variation provided variable degrees of fitness, then competition would indeed rule the animal kingdom, and the fittest would surely survive. BUT, individual animals are adaptive, and there is no reason to believe that any given moth will not adapt like any other moth in the same situation. Thus, if all organisms in a given environment adapt the same trait in the same way, there is no sense in saying that one will be any more fit than the next....and instead of specific genes determining who breeds, it's mostly a matter of being in the right place at the right time and finding a willing female, just like us humans.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 19 2007,22:59

Yawn. Night all.
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 19 2007,23:00

in this post, what do you mean by genes, evolution and natural selection?  If all of life is meaningless then everything you've said is meaningless and amounts to nothing.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,23:02

well you guys sure play dumb good.  This board is no challenge.
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 19 2007,23:03

the powers that be are doing ineffable 'powers-that-be' things. stay tuned.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 19 2007,23:13

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2007,23:03)
the powers that be are doing ineffable 'powers-that-be' things. stay tuned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no one care to debate natural selection with me?

Why would this guy write such a book of natural selection was so much of an indisputable fact?


< http://www.amazon.com/Biologi....&sr=1-1 >

"In Biological Emergences, Robert Reid argues that natural selection is not the cause of evolution. He writes that the causes of variations, which he refers to as natural experiments, are independent of natural selection; indeed, he suggests, natural selection may get in the way of evolution. Reid proposes an alternative theory to explain how emergent novelties are generated and under what conditions they can overcome the resistance of natural selection. He suggests that what causes innovative variation causes evolution, and that these phenomena are environmental as well as organismal.

After an extended critique of selectionism, Reid constructs an emergence theory of evolution, first examining the evidence in three causal arenas of emergent evolution: symbiosis/association, evolutionary physiology/behavior, and developmental evolution. Based on this evidence of causation, he proposes some working hypotheses, examining mechanisms and processes common to all three arenas, and arrives at a theoretical framework that accounts for generative mechanisms and emergent qualities. Without selectionism, Reid argues, evolutionary innovation can more easily be integrated into a general thesis. Finally, Reid proposes a biological synthesis of rapid emergent evolutionary phases and the prolonged, dynamically stable, non-evolutionary phases imposed by natural selection."
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 19 2007,23:35

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2007,23:03)
the powers that be are doing ineffable 'powers-that-be' things. stay tuned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Supersport is starting to really remind me of Ghost of Paley.
Posted by: MrsPeng on Sep. 20 2007,00:42

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:04)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 18 2007,16:02)
souperspork

phenotype is not the corner of ToE and has not been since Weldon and Bateson argued about nothing.  It's like you have never heard of 20 century biology.  

buuuuuuuuttttttt.....  since you have revolutionary views that will completely transform the face of science, here is a journal that will be receptive to them.  they need help.

< SuperSpunk's Nobel Prize Is Waiting... >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well it should be....bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
< August Weismann > figured out that bodies don't get passed down in the 1880s.

A HUGE, unending experiment continues to this day that disproves the inheritance of acquired characteristics:

< Primary factors of organic evolution >

If you want to start a real fight, mention "forced circumcision"  in certain circles, make some popcorn, grab a beer and a folding lawn chair and watch the fun.

So far, supersport, you have been only moderately entertaining here, despite some high quality tard you may have spewed on other fora. Your descent into inanity has been far too common: First the idiotic challenge that took no time at all to be answered. Then the shifting goal posts. "that's not what I mean by a mutation causing a blah blah blah' Then came the geological refutations. Then you start having a go at relativity. What's next? Whither the assault on entropy? I am very fond of second law arguments against evilution. It makes for some totally sweet, and by sweet I mean awesome, first-rate, blue-tees, hyphenated TARD.
Posted by: cdesign proponentsist on Sep. 20 2007,03:34

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,09:44)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:43)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,15:35)
   
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 18 2007,09:33)
Out of curiosity, and not particularly relevant to the thread as a whole.

1. How did you find here super?

2. Do you hate atheists, or do you just think they are wrong? There's a big difference, someone like Wes thinks atheists are, if only with their lack of belief, wrong, but don't hate us.
On the other hand, someone who considers atheists evil, or wicked AS A WHOLE, hates atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was browsing over at Brainstorms and saw a mention of this place.  I had never heard of it.  I'm glad I found it though...you guys are a riot.

No, I don't hate atheists....I used to be an unbeliever at one time myself.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really? Is this not you then?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"What happened to the happy-go-lucky, peace-loving athiest? The reality is atheists are dreadfully miserable, foul-mouthed individuals....Truly the pond scum of society
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that doesn't mean I hate them.  I hate science, not people.  That is just an observation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


SuperSport, I'm interested in how much of science you're willing to throw out. I'll admit that I don't understand your position on evolution because I don't see your hypothesis as testable (as in, we can't rule out that something supernatural whether it's god or something you've defined as "mind" has interfered with our results), but I do understand that often evolutionary denial is sort of a gateway to further science denial, and I'm trying to understand why.

I've composed a list of scientific theories (and one branch of mathematics) with the ones I think you're least willing to accept on top. I've even helpfully filled in two that seemed highly correlated with evolution denial. As a self-proclaimed hater of science, you seem like the perfect person to ask this question. How extreme of a denialist are you? Do even you have limits?

Theory (Accept Unsure Deny)
Evolution (Deny)
Theory of Relativity (Deny)
Global Warming (Deny?)
HIV/AIDS (Deny?)
Germ Theory of Disease
Quantum Mechanics
Electromagnetic Theory
Atomic Theory
Plate Tectonics
Big Bang
Trigonometry
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 20 2007,06:28

Quote (cdesign proponentsist @ Sep. 20 2007,04:34)
I've composed a list of scientific theories (and one branch of mathematics) with the ones I think you're least willing to accept on top. I've even helpfully filled in two that seemed highly correlated with evolution denial. As a self-proclaimed hater of science, you seem like the perfect person to ask this question. How extreme of a denialist are you? Do even you have limits?

Theory (Accept Unsure Deny)
Evolution (Deny)
Theory of Relativity (Deny)
Global Warming (Deny?)
HIV/AIDS (Deny?)
Germ Theory of Disease
Quantum Mechanics
Electromagnetic Theory
Atomic Theory
Plate Tectonics
Big Bang
Trigonometry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm pretty sure he's down with Think-Thing theory. Put that on the list.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 20 2007,06:33

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,00:02)
well you guys sure play dumb good.  This board is no challenge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like I said, sport, the horseshit you are vending is tiresome and empty, you and yours are not participants in serious discourse on these matters, and no one here really gives a rat's ass about what you think.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 20 2007,06:47

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,23:02)
well you guys sure play dumb good.  This board is no challenge.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, some of us play dumb. Took a while to learn. But your dumbness is innate, I fear.

Oh, BTW, about that question I asked. I think that the number of times I have asked it (and you have ignored it) is now up to double figures. Might be a record; I suspect Afdave is the current record holder, with FtK a close second. But I'll try it again, just to see how long you can play deaf and dumb.

What scientific evidence (peer-reviewed publication) can you provide for your assertion that mental processes generate life instantly?

Thanks again for not playing.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,07:04

This forum is pathetic.  Truly pathetic.  I ask you mental lightweights about mutations in my OP...never do I get a single answer....I asked about natural selection above, no answer again.  Instead all I get are insults.  This nonsense has gone on for 14 pages.   Now reach down, grab your tiny, sorry excuse for manhood and answer my previous post about natural selection.  Why should I believe that natural selection causes evolution, (change over time) when it has been proven that individual internal adaptations cause change over time?

by the way, MRSpeng, we've already been through that nonsense about Weismann.  That fraud misrepresented Lamarck's position.  Lamarck never argued that physical assaults on the organism would be inherited...what he argued was life experiences, internal adaptations to the environment would or could be inherited.  Now show me any scientific disproving this.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,07:11

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,07:04)
This forum is pathetic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This forum is pathetic.  Truly pathetic.  I ask you mental lightweights about mutations in my OP...never do I get a single answer....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You had several. You, cubicle boy, even responded to them and questioned them. Are you on some sort of medication?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.I asked about natural selection above, no answer again.  Instead all I get are insults.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Go read a book.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now reach down, grab your tiny, sorry excuse for manhood and answer my previous post about natural selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What was that about insults? Would Jesus want to see you using language like that? What a good Christian you are.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why should I believe that natural selection causes evolution, (change over time) when it has been proven that individual internal adaptations cause change over time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If it's been "proven" what's left to discuss? You are therefore on the "winning" side and this is the "losing" side. Are you therefore only here to gloat? Would Jesus approve of that?

Do you or don't you have a response to the bacteria point? You have had a central plank of your "case" demolished and won't acknowledge it. Not only are you a cubicle bunny, but demonstrably dishonest too!
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,07:14

show me where it's been proven by way of controlled experiment.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,07:15

SuperSport the cubicle dwelling troll Said


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We’ve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I responded with

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why don't the "fast breeders" suffer genetic diseases? Bacteria etc? Millions of generations gone past, and yet here they all still are ready to infect your food at the slightest chance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



SuperSport the dilbert knock off said


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Probably diet.....bacteria don't eat an assortment of chemicals, fats, salts, additives, hydrogenated oils, sodas, chips, fries, burgers, onion rings, Cheetos, fruit juice and corn dogs.....we do. Add on top of that exposure to pollution, industrial toxins, city water that's been loaded with fluoride and chlorine, pesticides, and all kinds of other contaminates.  It's causing a wholesale degeneration in the genome.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I posted


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bacteria found in radioactive waste Hanford. U.S. Scientists studying the soil beneath a leaking Hanford nuclear waste storage tank have discovered more than 100 species of bacteria living in a toxic, radioactive environment that most considered inhospitable to all forms of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet SuperSport has not commented. I've just destroyed a big part of your pathetic belief "system" (not really, as we know you are a Troll, but let's carry on pretending).

Typical dishonest YEC behavior.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,07:18

SuperSport Said


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why should I believe that natural selection causes evolution, (change over time) when it has been proven that individual internal adaptations cause change over time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I said


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have had a central plank of your "case" demolished and won't acknowledge it. Not only are you a cubicle bunny, but demonstrably dishonest too!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



SuperCubicleBoy Said


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
show me where it's been proven by way of controlled experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Tell you what SuperBoy, you show me where it's been proven by controlled experiment that individual internal adaptations cause change over time, and I'll show you where it's been proven that bacteria thrive on toxic waste.

Fair Deal?

Or don't YEC's believe in honesty?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 20 2007,07:21

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,07:04)
This forum is pathetic.  Truly pathetic.  I ask you mental lightweights about mutations in my OP...never do I get a single answer....I asked about natural selection above, no answer again.  Instead all I get are insults.   Now reach down, grab your tiny, sorry excuse for manhood and answer my previous post about natural selection.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


2 Days, 9.5 hours to move from OP to belligerency.  That has got to be a new record!  Someone needs to tell AFDave he has been bested.  SS, you da man!!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why should I believe that natural selection causes evolution, (change over time) when it has been proven that individual internal adaptations cause change over time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You shouldn't.  You are far smarter and have far better insights than the hundreds of thousands of working scientists that have studied this matter for the last couple hundred years.  Why are you wasting your time in a dingy backwater like ATBC casting pearls before such swine?  You need a wider platform if you are going to overturn all of modern science.

As for me, I'm running right out and finding a Baptist church to join. Oh, and I'm finally going to start studying for my real estate license too.  I want to stick it to those pinheaded so-called scientists with all their fancy book-larnin' and alphabet soup after their names!!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,07:31

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,07:14)
show me where it's been proven by way of controlled experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Production of Ethane, Ethylene, and Acetylene from Halogenated Hydrocarbons by Methanogenic Bacteria >

< Reduction of U(VI) to U(IV) by indigenous bacteria in contaminated ground water >

< Microbiological degradation of pesticides in yard waste composting. >

< Microbial Diversity in Uranium Mine Waste Heaps >

The abstract for that last one bears repeating



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Two different uranium mine waste heaps near Ronneburg, Thuringia, Germany, which contain the remains of the activity of the former uranium-mining Soviet-East German company Wismut AG, were analyzed for the occurrence of lithotrophic and chemoorganotropic leach bacteria. A total of 162 ore samples were taken up to a depth of 5 m. Cell counts of ferrous iron-, sulfur-, sulfur compound-, ammonia-, and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria were determined quantitatively by the most-probable-number technique. Sulfate-, nitrate-, ferric iron-, and manganese-reducing bacteria were also detected. In addition, the metabolic activity of sulfur- and iron-oxidizing bacteria was measured by microcalorimetry. Generally, all microorganisms mentioned above were detectable in the heaps. Aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms thrived up to a depth of 1.5 to 2 m. Up to 99% of Thiobacillus ferrooxidans cells, the dominant leaching bacteria, occurred to this depth. Their numbers correlated with the microbial activity measurements. Samples below 1.5 to 2 m exhibited reduced oxygen concentrations and reduced cell counts for all microorganisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



SuperSport, do you understand what the world "thrives" means?
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 20 2007,07:41

Hey Supersport,

Since your memory is all of 9 seconds long (you do believe in the measurement known as the second, right?), let me remind you of your stupidity.

People have posted about the polydactylity in horses, about increased fitness due to pigmentation changes, and numerous other things.  You don't even DISCUSS these things when brought up.

Instead of replying to the information brought up,you immediately ask other, unrelated questions.  This can be shown later on in the thread when it was the goal to resolves the issue of genetic information.

You brought up this issue by asking a question.  Several people offered to answer this question.  You responded by saying that your question was unanswerable.  Instead of trying to resolve this issue by restating the question, clarifying terms, or discussing related subject matter you:

1.  Called people childish
2.  Started to ignore the subject as if you had never broached it in the first place
3.  Moved on to other unrelated topics

By these actions, you show yourself to be a first class jackass.

Now, how about resolving one issue, JUST TO LET US KNOW YOU'RE SERIOUS:

What is meant by genetic information, or is your question meaningless?
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 20 2007,07:42

Too many the buttons I hit.  Ooops.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,07:58

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 20 2007,07:41)
Hey Supersport,

Since your memory is all of 9 seconds long (you do believe in the measurement known as the second, right?), let me remind you of your stupidity.

People have posted about the polydactylity in horses, about increased fitness due to pigmentation changes, and numerous other things.  You don't even DISCUSS these things when brought up.

Instead of replying to the information brought up,you immediately ask other, unrelated questions.  This can be shown later on in the thread when it was the goal to resolves the issue of genetic information.

You brought up this issue by asking a question.  Several people offered to answer this question.  You responded by saying that your question was unanswerable.  Instead of trying to resolve this issue by restating the question, clarifying terms, or discussing related subject matter you:

1.  Called people childish
2.  Started to ignore the subject as if you had never broached it in the first place
3.  Moved on to other unrelated topics

By these actions, you show yourself to be a first class jackass.

Now, how about resolving one issue, JUST TO LET US KNOW YOU'RE SERIOUS:

What is meant by genetic information, or is your question meaningless?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


polydactylity is not a selectable change....it's a genetic defect......and the pigmentation in the flies surely has not proven scientifically to result in more breedings....your assumption that this slight color change would make the opposite more attracted is a wild guess.   If you have evidence to the contrary you're welcome to present it.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 20 2007,07:59

Since people have kept parakeets in cages for hundreds of years, it seems that SuperDumbAss is saying that parakeets should be born with their own cage.

If there are no such things as genes with functions, DumbAss, then what is < this > all about?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Sep. 20 2007,08:00

Panadaptationist caricatures of evolution are boring.  There is no bottom to the well of cretinist stupidity.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,08:00

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 20 2007,07:59)
Since people have kept parakeets in cages for hundreds of years, it seems that SuperDumbAss is saying that parakeets should be born with their own cage.

If there are no such things as genes with functions, DumbAss, then what is < this > all about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hurry, your 3rd grade class is starting...you're going to be late.

by the way, I never said genes don't have functions, what I said is genes cannot be defined...just like the mind has functions yet can't be defined.  Geez.  Get it right.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 20 2007,08:06

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,08:04)
This forum is pathetic.  Truly pathetic.  I ask you mental lightweights about mutations in my OP...never do I get a single answer...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Stop me if you've heard this, Sport: the trollery and horseshit you are vending is tiresome and empty, you and yours are not participants in serious discourse on these matters, and no one here really gives a rat's ass about what you think or what your contrived challenges are.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,08:07

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,07:31)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,07:14)
show me where it's been proven by way of controlled experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Production of Ethane, Ethylene, and Acetylene from Halogenated Hydrocarbons by Methanogenic Bacteria >

< Reduction of U(VI) to U(IV) by indigenous bacteria in contaminated ground water >

< Microbiological degradation of pesticides in yard waste composting. >

< Microbial Diversity in Uranium Mine Waste Heaps >

The abstract for that last one bears repeating

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Two different uranium mine waste heaps near Ronneburg, Thuringia, Germany, which contain the remains of the activity of the former uranium-mining Soviet-East German company Wismut AG, were analyzed for the occurrence of lithotrophic and chemoorganotropic leach bacteria. A total of 162 ore samples were taken up to a depth of 5 m. Cell counts of ferrous iron-, sulfur-, sulfur compound-, ammonia-, and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria were determined quantitatively by the most-probable-number technique. Sulfate-, nitrate-, ferric iron-, and manganese-reducing bacteria were also detected. In addition, the metabolic activity of sulfur- and iron-oxidizing bacteria was measured by microcalorimetry. Generally, all microorganisms mentioned above were detectable in the heaps. Aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms thrived up to a depth of 1.5 to 2 m. Up to 99% of Thiobacillus ferrooxidans cells, the dominant leaching bacteria, occurred to this depth. Their numbers correlated with the microbial activity measurements. Samples below 1.5 to 2 m exhibited reduced oxygen concentrations and reduced cell counts for all microorganisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



SuperSport, do you understand what the world "thrives" means?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you miss this one Super?

Now, it's your turn to pony up the proof.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
show me where it's been proven by way of controlled experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've met your challenge. Are you too much of a coward to meet mine?
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 20 2007,08:11

Supersport,

Do you vote for school board members in my area?  If so, you should meet Ftk--and we have a problem.  If not, congratulations, you won't have to read me anymore.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,08:26

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,08:07)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,07:31)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,07:14)
show me where it's been proven by way of controlled experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Production of Ethane, Ethylene, and Acetylene from Halogenated Hydrocarbons by Methanogenic Bacteria >

< Reduction of U(VI) to U(IV) by indigenous bacteria in contaminated ground water >

< Microbiological degradation of pesticides in yard waste composting. >

< Microbial Diversity in Uranium Mine Waste Heaps >

The abstract for that last one bears repeating

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Two different uranium mine waste heaps near Ronneburg, Thuringia, Germany, which contain the remains of the activity of the former uranium-mining Soviet-East German company Wismut AG, were analyzed for the occurrence of lithotrophic and chemoorganotropic leach bacteria. A total of 162 ore samples were taken up to a depth of 5 m. Cell counts of ferrous iron-, sulfur-, sulfur compound-, ammonia-, and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria were determined quantitatively by the most-probable-number technique. Sulfate-, nitrate-, ferric iron-, and manganese-reducing bacteria were also detected. In addition, the metabolic activity of sulfur- and iron-oxidizing bacteria was measured by microcalorimetry. Generally, all microorganisms mentioned above were detectable in the heaps. Aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms thrived up to a depth of 1.5 to 2 m. Up to 99% of Thiobacillus ferrooxidans cells, the dominant leaching bacteria, occurred to this depth. Their numbers correlated with the microbial activity measurements. Samples below 1.5 to 2 m exhibited reduced oxygen concentrations and reduced cell counts for all microorganisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



SuperSport, do you understand what the world "thrives" means?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you miss this one Super?

Now, it's your turn to pony up the proof.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
show me where it's been proven by way of controlled experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've met your challenge. Are you too much of a coward to meet mine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sorry, none of these prove natural selection.  "Thrive" in this situation simply means the organisms adapted to the environment and lived happily -- there is no proof that natural selection was responsible.  It could just as easily been an internal, adaptive response.  To prove natural selection science would need to conduct controlled experiments on actual animals, marking and tagging them so they have irrefutable proof which ones live or die, thus failing to reproduce.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,08:29

just curious......so who's worse...me or the afDave guy (or whatever his name is) you guys were talking about?  By the way, anyone know where he debates?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,08:31

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,07:15)
SuperSport the cubicle dwelling troll Said


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We’ve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I responded with  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why don't the "fast breeders" suffer genetic diseases? Bacteria etc? Millions of generations gone past, and yet here they all still are ready to infect your food at the slightest chance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



SuperSport the dilbert knock off said


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Probably diet.....bacteria don't eat an assortment of chemicals, fats, salts, additives, hydrogenated oils, sodas, chips, fries, burgers, onion rings, Cheetos, fruit juice and corn dogs.....we do. Add on top of that exposure to pollution, industrial toxins, city water that's been loaded with fluoride and chlorine, pesticides, and all kinds of other contaminates.  It's causing a wholesale degeneration in the genome.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I posted


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bacteria found in radioactive waste Hanford. U.S. Scientists studying the soil beneath a leaking Hanford nuclear waste storage tank have discovered more than 100 species of bacteria living in a toxic, radioactive environment that most considered inhospitable to all forms of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet SuperSport has not commented. I've just destroyed a big part of your pathetic belief "system" (not really, as we know you are a Troll, but let's carry on pretending).

Typical dishonest YEC behavior.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Super, the issue at hand was not to "prove" natural selection as you well know.

I asked why bacteria are still around if genomic deterioration puts an upper limit on the number reproductve events, as you said.

YOU said it was because bacteria are not exposed to the toxins humans are.

I note that they are, and that they thrive on it.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,08:32

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,08:29)
just curious......so who's worse...me or the afDave guy (or whatever his name is) you guys were talking about?  By the way, anyone know where he debates?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave "debates" in the same style as you.

I.E not at all.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,08:35

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,08:26)
sorry, none of these prove natural selection.  "Thrive" in this situation simply means the organisms adapted to the environment and lived happily -- there is no proof that natural selection was responsible.  It could just as easily been an internal, adaptive response.  To prove natural selection science would need to conduct controlled experiments on actual animals, marking and tagging them so they have irrefutable proof which ones live or die, thus failing to reproduce.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, and what's you reason for why bacteria can "adapt to the environment and live happily" and bypass the genomic deterioration problem you claim exists, and humans cannot?

What's the difference between the two?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,08:36

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,08:31)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,07:15)
SuperSport the cubicle dwelling troll Said
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We’ve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I responded with  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why don't the "fast breeders" suffer genetic diseases? Bacteria etc? Millions of generations gone past, and yet here they all still are ready to infect your food at the slightest chance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



SuperSport the dilbert knock off said
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Probably diet.....bacteria don't eat an assortment of chemicals, fats, salts, additives, hydrogenated oils, sodas, chips, fries, burgers, onion rings, Cheetos, fruit juice and corn dogs.....we do. Add on top of that exposure to pollution, industrial toxins, city water that's been loaded with fluoride and chlorine, pesticides, and all kinds of other contaminates.  It's causing a wholesale degeneration in the genome.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I posted
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bacteria found in radioactive waste Hanford. U.S. Scientists studying the soil beneath a leaking Hanford nuclear waste storage tank have discovered more than 100 species of bacteria living in a toxic, radioactive environment that most considered inhospitable to all forms of life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet SuperSport has not commented. I've just destroyed a big part of your pathetic belief "system" (not really, as we know you are a Troll, but let's carry on pretending).

Typical dishonest YEC behavior.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Super, the issue at hand was not to "prove" natural selection as you well know.

I asked why bacteria are still around if genomic deterioration puts an upper limit on the number reproductve events, as you said.

YOU said it was because bacteria are not exposed to the toxins humans are.

I note that they are, and that they thrive on it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


depends on what the toxin is...pour gas or chlorine on them or some other toxic substance and see what happens.   Bacteria were designed to consume toxins....using this as an example of non-degeneration is silly.
Posted by: JonF on Sep. 20 2007,08:38

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:29)
just curious......so who's worse...me or the afDave guy (or whatever his name is) you guys were talking about?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're slightly worse.  Dave tries (unsuccessfully) to pretend to be interested in truth, you don't even make that effort.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 By the way, anyone know where he debates?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like you, he doesn't debate ... just regurgitates.

He runs away from one place to another.  Just like you.
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 20 2007,08:40

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,08:32)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,08:29)
just curious......so who's worse...me or the afDave guy (or whatever his name is) you guys were talking about?  By the way, anyone know where he debates?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


AFDave "debates" in the same style as you.

I.E not at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would note one difference, and that is that AFDave emphasizes volume where Sporty emphasizes velocity.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,08:46

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,08:36)
depends on what the toxin is...pour gas or chlorine on them or some other toxic substance and see what happens.   Bacteria were designed to consume toxins....using this as an example of non-degeneration is silly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Helping chlorine-eating bacteria clean up toxic waste >

< Computer modeling could help chlorine-hungry bacteria break down toxic waste >

And so on. There are plenty more.

And when you say "pour gas or chlorine" did you have a specific gas in mind? There are more then one you know.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
or some other toxic substance
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So the substances I linked to are not toxic? Strange defenition of toxic that you have.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,09:11

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,08:36)
Bacteria were designed to consume toxins....using this as an example of non-degeneration is silly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah,
There are many nasty bacterial infections
< http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/bacterialinfections.html >

As you say that bacteria were "designed" would you care to speculate on why the "designer" was so keen on killing the old and infirm via Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, and E. coli infections?

There are plenty more too.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 20 2007,09:16

Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,09:27

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,09:16)
Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the inability to see both sides of the issue -- hatred for the idea that they were created -- rebellion -- inability/unwillingness to investigate the truth....etc.  Evolutionists first rule out creation, or any evidence pointing to such, and then on top of that foundation, they only accept evidence that supports their pre-conceived notions.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 20 2007,09:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This true, Supersport?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,09:30

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:27)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,09:16)
Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the inability to see both sides of the issue -- hatred for the idea that they were created -- rebellion -- inability/unwillingness to investigate the truth....etc.  Evolutionists first rule out creation, or any evidence point to such, and then on top of that foundation only accept evidence that supports their pre-conceived notions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like you are describing yourself.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,09:30

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 20 2007,09:29)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This true, Supersport?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lie....make that person (whoever it was) present proof of such.   I will say I do post for entertainment value sometimes...and sometimes I say things in goofy ways just to get a rise out of people, but I do believe what I say.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 20 2007,09:31

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:27)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,09:16)
Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the inability to see both sides of the issue -- hatred for the idea that they were created -- rebellion -- inability/unwillingness to investigate the truth....etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


SS,

You have ignored all the evidence presented above.  All the arguments presented above that refute your statements so, who has the inability/unwillingness to acknowledge the truth?

"hatred for the idea that they were created"...are you really that stupid?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,09:34

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 20 2007,09:31)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:27)
 
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,09:16)
Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the inability to see both sides of the issue -- hatred for the idea that they were created -- rebellion -- inability/unwillingness to investigate the truth....etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


SS,

You have ignored all the evidence presented above.  All the arguments presented above that refute your statements so, who has the inability/unwillingness to acknowledge the truth?

"hatred for the idea that they were created"...are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why don't you answer my OP...then you can answer why it would be that natural selection is responsible for adapting populations when it has been proven that individuals are adaptive.

after you do that successfully you can go about your normal IQ-less game of calling people stupid.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,09:34

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:30)
lie....make that person (whoever it was) present proof of such.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When you present proof for a single assertion of yours then maybe you can demand other people to present proof.

About these bacteria....
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,09:37

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:34)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 20 2007,09:31)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:27)
   
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,09:16)
Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the inability to see both sides of the issue -- hatred for the idea that they were created -- rebellion -- inability/unwillingness to investigate the truth....etc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


SS,

You have ignored all the evidence presented above.  All the arguments presented above that refute your statements so, who has the inability/unwillingness to acknowledge the truth?

"hatred for the idea that they were created"...are you really that stupid?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


why don't you answer my OP...then you can answer why it would be that natural selection is responsible for adapting populations when it has been proven that individuals are adaptive.

after you do that successfully you can go about your normal IQ-less game of calling people stupid.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Every time you use the word "proven" why don't you add a link to the information that "proves" your case.

Otherwise anybody can write anything and consider it "proven"

I've "proven" unicorns don't exist.

I've "proven" that bacteria are designed.

I've < "proven" > supersport ignores difficult questions.

See what I did with the last one there?
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 20 2007,09:37

"why don't you answer my OP...then you can answer why it would be that natural selection is responsible for adapting populations when it has been proven that individuals are adaptive."

In your mind it has.  Please post the research test data.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,09:39

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 20 2007,09:37)
"why don't you answer my OP...then you can answer why it would be that natural selection is responsible for adapting populations when it has been proven that individuals are adaptive."

In your mind it has.  Please post the research test data.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


copout....I've already shown it many times.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,09:41

< http://discovermagazine.com/2006....t=1&-C= >

"To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."

now answer my question...why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,09:42

delete.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 20 2007,09:43

I've seen you post links that pose an idea with no repeatable supporting test data.  You post idea after idea, take concepts out of context and claim..."proven".

You have not proven a thing.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,09:51

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 20 2007,09:43)
I've seen you post links that pose an idea with no repeatable supporting test data.  You post idea after idea, take concepts out of context and claim..."proven".

You have not proven a thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


it's right there in front you -- you are brainwashed, which is why you can't see it.  Your atheism is clouding your sense of reality.

Now answer my question! : why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,09:52

ToE is pathetic, propped up by a bunch of dreamers.  No science, no proof, no evidence -- just fairytales posing as science.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,09:55

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:52)
ToE is pathetic, propped up by a bunch of dreamers.  No science, no proof, no evidence -- just fairytales posing as science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yo Momma.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 20 2007,09:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, this may be wrong, because I'm no scientist, but how about this?

Natural selection has selected for the ability to produce said spines. The spines are able to be brought out by the flea when needed, but all fleas have been selected to be able to produce the spines if and when they need them.

Therefore the spines of a single flea are created by the flea in response to something, but the ability was generated by RM + NS.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,10:04

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 20 2007,09:57)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, this may be wrong, because I'm no scientist, but how about this?

Natural selection has selected for the ability to produce said spines. The spines are able to be brought out by the flea when needed, but all fleas have been selected to be able to produce the spines if and when they need them.

Therefore the spines of a single flea are created by the flea in response to something, but the ability was generated by RM + NS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you are seriously moving the goal posts.  Now you are saying that animals have evolved to evolve...that evolution is no longer a populational process, but an individual one.  If this is the case, natural selection is finished, only to be replaced by individual adaptivity.  Now it's up to you to show that natural selection has ever been a reality or that animals did not used to have this ability.  Both are non-provable and non-scientific.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,10:09

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,10:04)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 20 2007,09:57)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, this may be wrong, because I'm no scientist, but how about this?

Natural selection has selected for the ability to produce said spines. The spines are able to be brought out by the flea when needed, but all fleas have been selected to be able to produce the spines if and when they need them.

Therefore the spines of a single flea are created by the flea in response to something, but the ability was generated by RM + NS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you are seriously moving the goal posts.  Now you are saying that animals have evolved to evolve...that evolution is no longer a populational process, but an individual one.  If this is the case, natural selection is finished, only to be replaced by individual adaptivity.  Now it's up to you to show that natural selection has ever been a reality or that animals did not used to have this ability.  Both are non-provable and non-scientific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, you've won, I'm a believer (of whatever it is that you are trying to convince us of).

So, now what? What changes?

When do you expect to be getting your nobel prize?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 20 2007,10:11

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:04)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 20 2007,09:57)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
.why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, this may be wrong, because I'm no scientist, but how about this?

Natural selection has selected for the ability to produce said spines. The spines are able to be brought out by the flea when needed, but all fleas have been selected to be able to produce the spines if and when they need them.

Therefore the spines of a single flea are created by the flea in response to something, but the ability was generated by RM + NS.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you are seriously moving the goal posts.  Now you are saying that animals have evolved to evolve...that evolution is no longer a populational process, but an individual one.  If this is the case, natural selection is finished, only to be replaced by individual adaptivity.  Now it's up to you to show that natural selection has ever been a reality or that animals did not used to have this ability.  Both are non-provable and non-scientific.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No I'm not. I'm saying they evolved the ability to produce spines. The fact that the flea can produce spines isn't an evolution.

Do you consider growth of hair in humans to be an evolution within the organism? If not, why not?
Posted by: Alan Fox on Sep. 20 2007,10:20

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 19 2007,18:35)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 19 2007,23:03)
the powers that be are doing ineffable 'powers-that-be' things. stay tuned.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Supersport is starting to really remind me of Ghost of Paley.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can see the resemblance, but where are the sweaty wrestlers?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 20 2007,10:22

This guy is a troll with a capital T. Other than one hilarious quote (in response to my answering the question in his OP, by the way) now immortalized on oldman's sig line, he has produced nothing of substance.

I propose that we stop engaging him. I suspect that he only wants attention, and we need to stop giving it to him. Let's see how shrill he gets if he is only talking to himself; I predict he will soon get into the range that only dogs can hear...
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 20 2007,10:39

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:52)
ToE is pathetic, propped up by a bunch of dreamers.  No science, no proof, no evidence -- just fairytales posing as science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's not even trying anymore.  He's a lazy, boring troll.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 20 2007,10:40

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 20 2007,10:22)
This guy is a troll with a capital T. Other than one hilarious quote (in response to my answering the question in his OP, by the way) now immortalized on oldman's sig line, he has produced nothing of substance.

I propose that we stop engaging him. I suspect that he only wants attention, and we need to stop giving it to him. Let's see how shrill he gets if he is only talking to himself; I predict he will soon get into the range that only dogs can hear...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, agreed.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 20 2007,10:44

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 20 2007,16:22)
This guy is a troll with a capital T. Other than one hilarious quote (in response to my answering the question in his OP, by the way) now immortalized on oldman's sig line, he has produced nothing of substance.

I propose that we stop engaging him. I suspect that he only wants attention, and we need to stop giving it to him. Let's see how shrill he gets if he is only talking to himself; I predict he will soon get into the range that only dogs can hear...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm in.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 20 2007,10:50

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,10:27)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,09:16)
Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the inability to see both sides of the issue -- hatred for the idea that they were created -- rebellion -- inability/unwillingness to investigate the truth....etc.  Evolutionists first rule out creation, or any evidence pointing to such, and then on top of that foundation, they only accept evidence that supports their pre-conceived notions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok, well, you listed a lot of behavior but only a couple of motives.  So you think that people who support evolution are motivated by "hatred for the idea that they were created" and "rebellion".  Presumably you mean "rebellion against God"?  That still doesn't make much sense to me.  Why would someone hate the idea that they were created?
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 20 2007,11:07

SS,

I've read the article...very interesting, good information.  So tell me, how is this the death Nell for RM?

Oh, and stop making assumptions about one's faith...it just proves you don't think before you post and highlights you to be that asshole we all think you are.
Posted by: J-Dog on Sep. 20 2007,11:18

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 20 2007,10:22)
I predict he will soon get into the range that only dogs can hear...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey!  I heard that!

But seriously./.. Yeah.  I'm all for starving the Troll.

Not smart, not amusing, not fun.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 20 2007,11:25

Ok.
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 20 2007,11:32

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 19 2007,17:40)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 19 2007,17:11)
Now wait a minute, first the mind is undefinable and then genetic information is just the physical manifestation of the mind?  Let's settle on something.  If we're going to apply scientific investigation then we must define it or else leave it as a meta-physical concept and move on to what we can define.  Let's go in one direction but not both.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


genes aren't definable either!

< http://www.junkdna.com/#genes_move_over >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pellionisz is a kook and self-promoter and has been disingenuous in his characterizations of the 'junk DNA' issue.

As I have explained to you twice already.

That it is clear that you simply ignore sound refutations of your claims, only to make them again and again, shows you to be at the very least suffering form some type of antisocial disorde, and at worst,a total fucking moron.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,13:43

starving me won't work...I'd rather have intellectual free reign than have fight off a bunch of ankle-biting atheists.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,13:47

back to the thing about the flea spines: (from link)

"To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."

So the question is, from where exactly did this new spine come from?  The physical structure had to come from somewhere -- but it wasn't from a mutation...it wasn't from a physical accident -- it was from a non-physical, purposeful process.

This brings a painful reality for materialists and evolutionists. Of course many deny this reality by saying it doesn’t contradict Darwinism, however, it absolutely does for the following reasons:

1) It shows the non-physical creates the physical. (By non-physical, I don’t know if this means “of the mind,” “mental,” “spiritual,” “mystical,” or whatever else. The point is that the physical is created and manipulated by a non-physical entity residing in each organism.)

2) It shows the non-physical codes the information in the DNA structure. (Everyone wondered where the information that resides in DNA comes from….now we know -- the mind.)

3.) It shows that the non-physical is the unit of inheritance. It’s these non-physical signals that code the genetic states that get passed on from generation to generation. This, of course, is blasphomy 101 for the evolutionist….but have you ever wondered why kids often come out looking and acting like their parents and grandparents? It’s because they are simply the physical seed that’s been encoded by their parent’s non-physical mental, emotional and spiritual signals.

4) It shows there is no need for natural selection for new traits to spread throughout a population; that evolution happens horizontally before it happens vertically.

5) It shows a new or mutated gene is not necessary for the emergence and/or inheritance of new physical traits.

6) It shows the whole manipulates and controls its parts. Materialists say all evolution happens as a result of random alterations of genetic structure; that accidental changes in parts create new and different wholes….in reality it’s the purposeful and intellectual processes of wholes that creates new and different parts. This flips everything about biology on its head -- including the fossil record; it turns a process that would take millions of years into a process that takes a blink of an eye.

7) It backs up The Bible and Genesis by showing humans – and every other animal -- got here not by way of millions of years of physical accidents, but instead, instantly, as a result of special creation by way of a non-physical, intellectual reality.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 20 2007,14:14

We could answer your questions SS, and as a matter of fact, we did for many of them.
But the problem is that your ignorance of biology and science in general is so huge that you'll keep asking "show me the experiments that prove that genes are inherited, that fleas don't have a mind, that pigs can't fly... etc"

Haven't you said "I hate science"?
Why would we waste more time with you?
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 20 2007,14:32

er....er.............aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!

Non-physical!...Non-physical!!!....You asshole...the flea is a physical entity...process inside the flea are physical....not mystical.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,15:16

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 20 2007,14:14)
We could answer your questions SS, and as a matter of fact, we did for many of them.
But the problem is that your ignorance of biology and science in general is so huge that you'll keep asking "show me the experiments that prove that genes are inherited, that fleas don't have a mind, that pigs can't fly... etc"

Haven't you said "I hate science"?
Why would we waste more time with you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


well considering no one has yet answered the challenge in my OP -- which means mutations in no way, shape or form could have physically gotten bacteria out of the primordial swamp, nor has anyone given me a scientifically-verified example of natural selection in the field, it's pretty clear that the mechanims science has propped up as "fact" for the past century are no better than sceince fiction.  The fact is, you have not one piece of evidence supporting the notion that animals change genetically/mechanistically, ie...randomly w.r.t to fitness.  None.  You people have nothing but your deep desire to not be created and nothing more.  This is all propped up by foundation of scientific nonsense, screaming, shouting, insulting, and a heavy dose of scoffing at anyone who questions this unsupportable dogma.   ToE is a scientific joke.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,15:20

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 20 2007,14:32)
er....er.............aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!

Non-physical!...Non-physical!!!....You asshole...the flea is a physical entity...process inside the flea are physical....not mystical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1st...flea has no spine

2nd...predator introduced

3rd...flea has spine.

4th...new spine gets passed on to future generations.


from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 20 2007,15:27

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,15:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For God so loved the flea, that he gave his only begotten spine, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but infest dogs forevermore.
Posted by: swbarnes2 on Sep. 20 2007,15:29

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,13:47)
back to the thing about the flea spines: (from link)

So the question is, from where exactly did this new spine come from?  The physical structure had to come from somewhere -- but it wasn't from a mutation...it wasn't from a physical accident -- it was from a non-physical, purposeful process.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




The simplest explanation is that the instructions had already evolved  (that is, they were physically there), and they went dormant  (probably due to a physical process altering the DNA such that those bits were no longer transcribed) , and were reactivated (again, by a physical process that reactivated that transcription), by something like imprinting (again, a physical process).

Nothing non-physical there.

Just because YOU can't think of a physical process isn't proof that there isn't one.  It just proves that you don't know much biology.

The universe is simply full of physical processes that science has figured out.  How many non-physical phenomena have Creationists figured out to date?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Sep. 20 2007,15:34

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 20 2007,14:32)
er....er.............aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh!

Non-physical!...Non-physical!!!....You asshole...the flea is a physical entity...process inside the flea are physical....not mystical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1st...flea has no spine

2nd...predator introduced

3rd...flea has spine.

4th...new spine gets passed on to future generations.


from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, let's stipulate that current MET has no explanation whatsoever for these flea spines.  How does that support any hypothesis of yours?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 20 2007,15:41

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Sep. 20 2007,15:34)
1st...flea has no spine

2nd...predator introduced

3rd...flea has spine.

4th...new spine gets passed on to future generations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How many generations?
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 20 2007,15:47

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a chemical reaction to the predator.  You'd have learned this if you spent 10 minutes on Google.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 20 2007,15:58

Genetic determinism vs. plasticity, some basics for SS:
< http://www.galenicom.com/en/medline/article/15817441 >
Read the abstract (not sure if you can access the full text) and see how scientists distinguish between a phenotype triggered by an environmental cause, and a phenotype that has a genetic basis.

This is just an instance among thousands. Mendelian genetics... discovered more than 150 years ago. You missed the boat, SS.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 20 2007,16:01

...also the article did not define "spine".  Are we to assume that this is a spine similar to those of humans???...or is this some chemical physiological reaction to a predator???

Also, you are mis-using Non-physical...which is my point.  You using in a way that make imply something mystical or Godly....which is not the case.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Sep. 20 2007,16:05

It's a daphnia, not a flea!
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphnia >
The common name is "water flea."

I looked at the paper I believe our stuporsquirt is on about, and I found it interesting that it's written entirely from a Darwinian perspective: the authors don't seem to feel they've uncovered any weird Lamarckian mechanism, stuporsquirt. Why do you? Are you more qualified than they to interpret their results, or are you talking out of an orifice other than your mouth?

After a little checking on my lunch break, it turns out that the phenomenon, called "inducible defenses," has been observed in many different lineages (although, not, to my knowledge, fleas). There's a book on the subject, which is reviewed < here >
Oh, and here's < the paper >

Why don't you learn something, squirt?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 20 2007,16:24

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Sep. 20 2007,22:05)
It's a daphnia, not a flea!
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphnia >
The common name is "water flea."

I looked at the paper I believe our stuporsquirt is on about, and I found it interesting that it's written entirely from a Darwinian perspective: the authors don't seem to feel they've uncovered any weird Lamarckian mechanism, stuporsquirt. Why do you? Are you more qualified than they to interpret their results, or are you talking out of an orifice other than your mouth?

After a little checking on my lunch break, it turns out that the phenomenon, called "inducible defenses," has been observed in many different lineages (although, not, to my knowledge, fleas). There's a book on the subject, which is reviewed < here >
Oh, and here's < the paper >

Why don't you learn something, squirt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[supersport]Can't prove it's the genes! Can't prove it's the genes!

[/supersport]
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,17:01

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,15:47)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a chemical reaction to the predator.  You'd have learned this if you spent 10 minutes on Google.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not done yet.....what released these chemicals...and why...what signal called for their release??
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,17:03

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Sep. 20 2007,16:05)
It's a daphnia, not a flea!
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphnia >
The common name is "water flea."

I looked at the paper I believe our stuporsquirt is on about, and I found it interesting that it's written entirely from a Darwinian perspective: the authors don't seem to feel they've uncovered any weird Lamarckian mechanism, stuporsquirt. Why do you? Are you more qualified than they to interpret their results, or are you talking out of an orifice other than your mouth?

After a little checking on my lunch break, it turns out that the phenomenon, called "inducible defenses," has been observed in many different lineages (although, not, to my knowledge, fleas). There's a book on the subject, which is reviewed < here >
Oh, and here's < the paper >

Why don't you learn something, squirt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't care what you call it or what other people think.  The reality is these spines did not form by way of natural selection.....they did not form randomly...they did not form by tiny changes in nucleotides...they did not change because of mutations....they did not change gradually over time.  For this, you can eliminate a darwinian explanation.
Posted by: BWE on Sep. 20 2007,17:06

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,17:01)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,15:47)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a chemical reaction to the predator.  You'd have learned this if you spent 10 minutes on Google.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not done yet.....what released these chemicals...and why...what signal called for their release??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quetzalcoatl?

That's my guess.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Sep. 20 2007,17:13



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't care what you call it or what other people think.  The reality is these spines did not form by way of natural selection.....they did not form randomly...they did not form by tiny changes in nucleotides...they did not change because of mutations....they did not change gradually over time.  For this, you can eliminate a darwinian explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Going for a world record in assertion without substantiation? Keep it up. Stay hydrated.

But you may have noticed that the authors of the paper clearly do not agree with your analysis. Why is that, do you think?
And, why, if they got the conclusion wrong, according to you, would you trust anything else in the paper?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 20 2007,17:26

You guys that say, "Yo, I can quit anytime"  and "I'm not a creatotrad junckie, I only reply recreationally" are liars.

Face it, you are all strung out.  With UD in self destruct mode, your pathetic need for the C-tard drives you to reply to one of the sickest tard pushers on the entertubes.

I'll stick with beer.


Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 20 2007,17:33

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 20 2007,18:26)
I'll stick with beer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hell yes.
Posted by: C.J.O'Brien on Sep. 20 2007,17:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll stick with beer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You say that like they're mutually exclusive.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 20 2007,18:45

SS,

Are these real spines???...composed of vertebrae, spinal col????....or are these just "spine" like.

Huge difference.

Oh, and make mine a Capt.N'DietPepsi....
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 20 2007,19:02

SS, I stopped reading around pg 15 or so because it's evident you don't know what you're talking about.  I propose we lock this thread now so no more time is wasted.

To try to push you in the right direction, though, consider this:

Natural selection does not exist as a physical process.  NS is nothing more than a description of life as we know it.  There is no creative power to NS.  Animals are born, they live, they compete and they die, period.  Those that "live" the best propagate more.  It's just that simple.  Traits are not selected for except in our retrospective observations.  We can not debate you about NS because 1) you don't understand it and, 2) accepting your premise would mean denying observable reality.  This is tiresome and you give thinking religious people a bad name.

With that, I repeat that this thread is worthy of locking.  Any seconds?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 20 2007,19:09

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 20 2007,17:02)
With that, I repeat that this thread is worthy of locking.  Any seconds?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't agree here.  StupidSplurt is an excellent argument aginst creationism for anyone with the wit to follow references and to actually read them.
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 20 2007,19:13

I'm not so sure he's actually even articulated a valid creationist argument.  No pun intended.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,19:42

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 20 2007,19:02)
SS, I stopped reading around pg 15 or so because it's evident you don't know what you're talking about.  I propose we lock this thread now so no more time is wasted.

To try to push you in the right direction, though, consider this:

Natural selection does not exist as a physical process.  NS is nothing more than a description of life as we know it.  There is no creative power to NS.  Animals are born, they live, they compete and they die, period.  Those that "live" the best propagate more.  It's just that simple.  Traits are not selected for except in our retrospective observations.  We can not debate you about NS because 1) you don't understand it and, 2) accepting your premise would mean denying observable reality.  This is tiresome and you give thinking religious people a bad name.

With that, I repeat that this thread is worthy of locking.  Any seconds?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


of course you want to lock the thread....because that's what darwinists do when they're pinned up against a wall....they're not able to debate the truth so their next best weapon is banning or silencing it.   I've asked this forum repeatedly for examples of either natural selection creating something or mutations creating something -- neither have been answered...and that's because both are either degenerative or conservative mechanisms and neither are able to create anything new or more complex.

Keep trying to get the thread locked -- it's about all you've got left -- You're a great Darwinist.  Keep it up.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,19:42

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,17:01)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,15:47)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a chemical reaction to the predator.  You'd have learned this if you spent 10 minutes on Google.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not done yet.....what released these chemicals...and why...what signal called for their release??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no answer.....again.
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 20 2007,20:12

LOL, you don't know who you're talking to young man.  Do your homework.
Posted by: fusilier on Sep. 20 2007,20:49

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 20 2007,20:12)
LOL, you don't know who you're talking to young man.  Do your homework.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


SS doesn't give a rat's ass about anything.  Calling him a lying bastard is an insult to mill files the world over.


fusilier
James 2:24
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 20 2007,20:53

Quote (fusilier @ Sep. 20 2007,20:49)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 20 2007,20:12)
LOL, you don't know who you're talking to young man.  Do your homework.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


SS doesn't give a rat's ass about anything.  Calling him a lying bastard is an insult to mill files the world over.


fusilier
James 2:24
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Incidentally, fusilier, did you see < this >?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 20 2007,21:03

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 20 2007,21:12)
LOL, you don't know who you're talking to young man.  Do your homework.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Relative to SS you're a hard-nosed materialist, and an uncompromising eliminativist vis consciousness and mind, Skept.

Now there's a turn we weren't expecting.
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 20 2007,21:39

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,17:30)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 20 2007,09:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This true, Supersport?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lie....make that person (whoever it was) present proof of such.   I will say I do post for entertainment value sometimes...and sometimes I say things in goofy ways just to get a rise out of people, but I do believe what I say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What SnuperSlurp believes is that by debating intelligent people over nonsense will somehow exercise his most underused organ.
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 20 2007,21:49

Bill, funny how relative some things are, isn't it.  :D
Posted by: qetzal on Sep. 20 2007,23:12

Quote (BWE @ Sep. 20 2007,17:06)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,17:01)
   
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,15:47)
     
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a chemical reaction to the predator.  You'd have learned this if you spent 10 minutes on Google.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not done yet.....what released these chemicals...and why...what signal called for their release??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quetzalcoatl?

That's my guess.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope. Weren't me.

We're talking water fleas, right? Could've been Neptune (or Poseidon or whatever he's calling himself these days).
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 20 2007,23:15

This board is sooooooooooooo:

< http://bushwhacked.net/bits/boring.jpg >

and instead of encountering a group of people who care to debate the issues, all I get is:

< http://eatwild.com/IMAGES/preening_chickens_lg.jpg >

so I'll ask again:

what released these chemicals...and why...what signal called for their release??
Posted by: k.e on Sep. 20 2007,23:46

Whats your explanation for the spine dickwad.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 21 2007,00:38

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,19:42)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,17:01)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,15:47)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a chemical reaction to the predator.  You'd have learned this if you spent 10 minutes on Google.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not done yet.....what released these chemicals...and why...what signal called for their release??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no answer.....again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You think that water fleas are don't detect predator via natural processes?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 21 2007,00:51

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 21 2007,00:38)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,19:42)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,17:01)
 
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,15:47)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a chemical reaction to the predator.  You'd have learned this if you spent 10 minutes on Google.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not done yet.....what released these chemicals...and why...what signal called for their release??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no answer.....again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You think that water fleas are don't detect predator via natural processes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How did SS detect this forum?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 21 2007,03:21

I have a question. Since genes don't pass anything down according to you supes, does DNA actually do anything?
Posted by: fusilier on Sep. 21 2007,04:33

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:30)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 20 2007,09:29)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This true, Supersport?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lie....make that person (whoever it was) present proof of such.   I will say I do post for entertainment value sometimes...and sometimes I say things in goofy ways just to get a rise out of people, but I do believe what I say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was me, SS.

You don't have Diane Sellner's miniskirts to hide behind over here.  

fusilier
James 2:24
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 21 2007,06:22

SS,

Again, are these real spines...with vertebrae, vertebral column...or are these just spine like???
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 21 2007,06:32

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 21 2007,06:22)
SS,

Again, are these real spines...with vertebrae, vertebral column...or are these just spine like???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The question is how would SS know a spine if he saw one anyway? He certainly lacks one. Maybe his interest in this topic is so he can work out how to grow one...
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 21 2007,06:54

Quote (fusilier @ Sep. 21 2007,04:33)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:30)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 20 2007,09:29)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This true, Supersport?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lie....make that person (whoever it was) present proof of such.   I will say I do post for entertainment value sometimes...and sometimes I say things in goofy ways just to get a rise out of people, but I do believe what I say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was me, SS.

You don't have Diane Sellner's miniskirts to hide behind over here.  

fusilier
James 2:24
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so why would you make that up?  The only time I've talked to you in private is when you were belly-aching that I called you "fusiliar"......which is highly ironic.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 21 2007,06:57

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 21 2007,03:21)
I have a question. Since genes don't pass anything down according to you supes, does DNA actually do anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


like a computer has a hard drive, the genome is simply a storage device. It may contain the information to build a body, but it is not in itself a creator or generator of information.

"But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick's central dogma, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of the information but its SOLE CREATOR. I do not believe this to be true." Pierre Grasse
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 21 2007,07:00

Did somebody hear a noise?
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 21 2007,07:01

I would like to debate anyone over natural selection, if they so dare.
-----------------
 What would qualify as disproof of the theory of natural selection? Is there such a thing? Let's find out.

First of all, let's look at Charles Darwin's book title...here it is:

"On the Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection"


Ok. So Darwin, as do his followers, believes that animals evolve BECAUSE of natural selection. It's not enough to say that natural selection merely exists in nature, instead, we are to believe that natural selection is responsible for how animals change.

So for example, the peppered moth was said to have evolved because of their predators (birds) ate a particular color of moth (I think it was white) because it stood out on the tree trunks...and because the white moths were eliminated, this explained the why the dark moths came to dominate the population. It is also important to note that, according to the theory, both the white and dark moths were just random variations within the population.

Ok. So tell me, what is the possible disproof of the preceding scenario that natural selection caused this change in the population? It seems to me that if, instead of NS, the moths all changed individually, purposefully from white to black or if white moths gave birth to black offspring, then the idea that selection caused the change would be disproven because the change would be internal, not external.

So in this case, evolutionists would have to believe that if there were no birds or any other predators to consume the ill-adapted moths, that the population would have never evolved, right? The birds caused the evolution, not the moths themselves.

But now, even though science has uncovered a handful of mechanisms that allow for species to self-adapt to changing environments, evolutionists are STILL saying natural selection plays a role. But if the variation comes from within, it wouldn't matter if the birds ate the white moths or not, natural selection would not be the true cause of change, which is the whole point of Charles Darwin's book. (Look again at his title, if necessary.)

And, with moths, that's exactly what's happening. See the following site:

< http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/moths/polyphenism1.html >

So as someone who doesn't believe in the power of natural selection, what else am I supposed to do to convince you evolutionists that NS has no power to evolve a population other than to point out that individual animals have the ability to adapt themselves? And once you see that individuals are adaptive, how exactly is it that you can still claim that natural selection causes evolution?

Finally, to me, natural selection is something that would most certainly happen if individuals were not adaptive. If there truly were pools of random genetic variation in populations, and if this genetic variation provided variable degrees of fitness, then competition would indeed rule the animal kingdom, and the fittest would surely survive. BUT, individual animals are adaptive, and there is no reason to believe that any given moth will not adapt like any other moth in the same situation. Thus, if all organisms in a given environment adapt the same trait in the same way, there is no sense in saying that one will be any more fit than the next....and instead of specific genes determining who breeds, it's mostly a matter of being in the right place at the right time and finding a willing female, just like us humans.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 21 2007,07:27

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 21 2007,07:00)
Did somebody hear a noise?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope. i didn't hear a thing.
Posted by: ofro on Sep. 21 2007,07:29

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:41)
< http://discovermagazine.com/2006....t=1&-C= >

"To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."

now answer my question...why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are wrong.  You are assuming that the ability to create spines is created simultaneously by many or all members of a population.  

Rather, this change occurs with one individual and is passed on to its progeny.  It just occurs to rapidly because of the rapid generation times of these animals.  And even if this is an epigenetic effect that may wear off after a few generations without selection pressure by a predator, (I didn't have time to examine the spine phenomenon in detail), it is still a process where a phenotype is passed on to the next generation, not among members of the same generation.
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 21 2007,07:36

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,18:01)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,15:47)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a chemical reaction to the predator.  You'd have learned this if you spent 10 minutes on Google.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not done yet.....what released these chemicals...and why...what signal called for their release??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The predator released them.  Because that's what these particular predators do.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 21 2007,08:02

Quote (ofro @ Sep. 21 2007,07:29)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:41)
< http://discovermagazine.com/2006....t=1&-C= >

"To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."

now answer my question...why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are wrong.  You are assuming that the ability to create spines is created simultaneously by many or all members of a population.  

Rather, this change occurs with one individual and is passed on to its progeny.  It just occurs to rapidly because of the rapid generation times of these animals.  And even if this is an epigenetic effect that may wear off after a few generations without selection pressure by a predator, (I didn't have time to examine the spine phenomenon in detail), it is still a process where a phenotype is passed on to the next generation, not among members of the same generation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so knowing this is a non-random change, if one group of fleas are exposed to predators and they generate spines, what would stop other fleas from doing the same?   Why would one flea be constructed in such a different way that it would not be able to respond morphologically while others in the same population would?  Your logic makes no sense.
Posted by: supersport on Sep. 21 2007,08:04

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 21 2007,07:36)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,18:01)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,15:47)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a chemical reaction to the predator.  You'd have learned this if you spent 10 minutes on Google.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not done yet.....what released these chemicals...and why...what signal called for their release??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The predator released them.  Because that's what these particular predators do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


accidentally?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 21 2007,08:11

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 21 2007,06:57)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 21 2007,03:21)
I have a question. Since genes don't pass anything down according to you supes, does DNA actually do anything?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


like a computer has a hard drive, the genome is simply a storage device. It may contain the information to build a body, but it is not in itself a creator or generator of information.

"But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick's central dogma, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of the information but its SOLE CREATOR. I do not believe this to be true." Pierre Grasse
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But new "information" is stored in the genome, right?
Posted by: improvius on Sep. 21 2007,08:14

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 21 2007,09:04)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 21 2007,07:36)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,18:01)
 
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,15:47)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,16:20)
from where did the spine come from?  What was the cause of the emergence of the spine?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a chemical reaction to the predator.  You'd have learned this if you spent 10 minutes on Google.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're not done yet.....what released these chemicals...and why...what signal called for their release??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The predator released them.  Because that's what these particular predators do.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


accidentally?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course not.  It's all by design.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 21 2007,08:18

SuperTurd:

Is there a reason you haven't attempted to answer a question yet?  You've asked about 9,000 questions (a couple of them even related to each other) and demanded answers to them.  I'd say about 4,000 of these have been answered.  Perhaps they have not been answered to your satisfaction (mostly because of goalpost moving), but the conversation has been started on them.

The questions asked of you, however, and the follow-ups to your questions?  You haven't even attempted to answer, clarify, or continue a conversation about them.

Why is this?

Again, something you have continually ignored:

ARE YOU REALLY INTERESTED IN LEARNING OR IN EDUCATING?

Your failure to address this issue with even one short sentence says a lot about the giant turd lodged in your face.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 21 2007,09:24

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 21 2007,14:02)
Quote (ofro @ Sep. 21 2007,07:29)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:41)
< http://discovermagazine.com/2006....t=1&-C= >

"To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."

now answer my question...why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are wrong.  You are assuming that the ability to create spines is created simultaneously by many or all members of a population.  

Rather, this change occurs with one individual and is passed on to its progeny.  It just occurs to rapidly because of the rapid generation times of these animals.  And even if this is an epigenetic effect that may wear off after a few generations without selection pressure by a predator, (I didn't have time to examine the spine phenomenon in detail), it is still a process where a phenotype is passed on to the next generation, not among members of the same generation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so knowing this is a non-random change, if one group of fleas are exposed to predators and they generate spines, what would stop other fleas from doing the same?   Why would one flea be constructed in such a different way that it would not be able to respond morphologically while others in the same population would?  Your logic makes no sense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps because the genetic information that resulted in this ability was due to a mutation within a single organism, resulting in the rest of the organisms in the same generation NOT having this ability?

Is this REALLY hard for you?
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 21 2007,09:26

Looks like supes is a pariah now, like FtK.

I know he was annoying, but seriously, don't you think that was a bit hasty?
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 21 2007,12:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do fleas eat only breakfast and dinner?

Because there's no such thing as a flea lunch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Sep. 21 2007,12:46

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 21 2007,09:26)
Looks like supes is a pariah now, like FtK.

I know he was annoying, but seriously, don't you think that was a bit hasty?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think a useful strategy for piranhas is to discuss their original question only, but to ignore the troll's further utterances.  That way, it would be clear that the original post was incoherent.  This would be done by responding only to each other after initial responses.  Or ridiculing the further posts that are particularly ridiculous.  It makes boggarts go away, perhaps it will work on internet trolls.
Posted by: qetzal on Sep. 21 2007,14:28

All these questions about spines and chemicals are easily answered if one simply reads < the paper > that C.J.O'Brien linked < just yesterday. >

The chemicals are released when fish digest Daphnia that they have eaten. In other words, the chemicals are digested Daphnia. Those chemicals get released into the water where the fish and the Daphnia live. The Daphnia can detect these chemicals and 'recognize' them (in a non-anthropomorphic way) as a signal that there are Daphnia-eating fish around.

It's rather like when you eat asparagus. One of the digestion products has a distinct odor. You release it into the environment when you pee. If someone is nearby at the time, they can smell it and recognize that you've been eating asparagus. You didn't purposely release the chemical in your urine. It's just an unavoidable consequence of eating and digesting asparagus.

Anyway, the chemicals trigger developmental changes in the Daphnia that result in spines (or bigger spines). I think it's clear that appearance of the spines is not based on a contemporaneous mutational event. The Daphnia already have the ability to respond to the chemical signals by growing the spines.

One could ask why Daphnia don't have spines all the time. My guess is that there's an energetic cost to growing and maintaining the spines, and that it's advantageous not to grow them if they aren't needed for defense. That's admittedly speculative on my part, although it's testable (and may have been tested, for all I know).

SS seems to think that, just because some morphological changes occur in response to environmental cues, therefore all morphological changes occur in response to environmental cues. Why he thinks that's a logical conclusion is beyond me.
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 21 2007,15:55

pain in the butt for the poor Daphnia that have to act as the early warning signal, lol.

actually, I'd go so far as to say that most changes are in response to environmental stimuli and if that's the case then SS's beef is with RM but he doesn't understand either well enough to know that.  

By the way, did I miss something?  Has he been banned so soon?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 21 2007,16:25

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 21 2007,15:55)
By the way, did I miss something?  Has he been banned so soon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People aren't banned without a good reason and a warning at AtBC.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 21 2007,16:29

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 21 2007,06:54)
Quote (fusilier @ Sep. 21 2007,04:33)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:30)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 20 2007,09:29)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This true, Supersport?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


lie....make that person (whoever it was) present proof of such.   I will say I do post for entertainment value sometimes...and sometimes I say things in goofy ways just to get a rise out of people, but I do believe what I say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was me, SS.

You don't have Diane Sellner's miniskirts to hide behind over here.  

fusilier
James 2:24
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


so why would you make that up?  The only time I've talked to you in private is when you were belly-aching that I called you "fusiliar"......which is highly ironic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even *I* think that's an amazing example of dodging a question, and I have VMartin to compare it to!
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 21 2007,16:32

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 21 2007,16:25)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 21 2007,15:55)
By the way, did I miss something?  Has he been banned so soon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People aren't banned without a good reason and a warning at AtBC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, what's the evidence that he's been banned?
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 21 2007,16:34

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 21 2007,16:32)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 21 2007,16:25)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 21 2007,15:55)
By the way, did I miss something?  Has he been banned so soon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People aren't banned without a good reason and a warning at AtBC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, what's the evidence that he's been banned?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Show me the evidence that he hasn't. Ha!
Posted by: ofro on Sep. 21 2007,16:36

Quote (ofro @ Sep. 21 2007,07:29)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:41)
< http://discovermagazine.com/2006....t=1&-C= >

"To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."

now answer my question...why would natural selection be responsible for spreading these spines throughout the population if each individual creates them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are wrong.  You are assuming that the ability to create spines is created simultaneously by many or all members of a population.  

Rather, this change occurs with one individual and is passed on to its progeny.  It just occurs to rapidly because of the rapid generation times of these animals.  And even if this is an epigenetic effect that may wear off after a few generations without selection pressure by a predator, (I didn't have time to examine the spine phenomenon in detail), it is still a process where a phenotype is passed on to the next generation, not among members of the same generation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Sep. 20 2007,16:05)
It's a daphnia, not a flea!
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphnia >
The common name is "water flea."

I looked at the paper I believe our stuporsquirt is on about, and I found it interesting that it's written entirely from a Darwinian perspective: the authors don't seem to feel they've uncovered any weird Lamarckian mechanism, stuporsquirt. Why do you? Are you more qualified than they to interpret their results, or are you talking out of an orifice other than your mouth?

After a little checking on my lunch break, it turns out that the phenomenon, called "inducible defenses," has been observed in many different lineages (although, not, to my knowledge, fleas). There's a book on the subject, which is reviewed < here >
Oh, and here's < the paper >

Why don't you learn something, squirt?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



My apologies to everyone; I didn't do my homework.  Almost like you-know-who.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 21 2007,16:36

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 21 2007,16:34)
 
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 21 2007,16:32)
   
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 21 2007,16:25)
   
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 21 2007,15:55)
By the way, did I miss something?  Has he been banned so soon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People aren't banned without a good reason and a warning at AtBC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, what's the evidence that he's been banned?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Show me the evidence that he hasn't. Ha!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Touché!
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 21 2007,17:34

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 21 2007,22:32)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 21 2007,16:25)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 21 2007,15:55)
By the way, did I miss something?  Has he been banned so soon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


People aren't banned without a good reason and a warning at AtBC.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, what's the evidence that he's been banned?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's not been banned, but he's now a pariah. He sent me a PM, and it had him down as Pariah in it.

So he can no longer post.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 21 2007,17:34

Funny, I just got a private message from SS saying that he was banned.

At first, I was thinking of a stupid joke, then a noticed his group name "Pariah".

What did he do?
Can he still post private messages?

EDIT: OK Ian.
Still, I'd like an explanation.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 21 2007,17:37

"Pirahna" is that new category whereby you can do everything except post. I think FTK is in that same category, and the short-lived "Krabs" who was here a couple weeks ago.

Correct me if I've gotten any of the details wrong.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 21 2007,17:38

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 21 2007,09:26)
Looks like supes is a pariah now, like FtK.

I know he was annoying, but seriously, don't you think that was a bit hasty?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I may be missing something, but it looks quite unfair to me.
Paley has been trolling for more than a year before getting banned.
Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 21 2007,17:41

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 21 2007,23:34)
Funny, I just got a private message from SS saying that he was banned.

At first, I was thinking of a stupid joke, then a noticed his group name "Pariah".

Was did he do?
Can he still post private messages?

EDIT: OK Ian.
Still, I'd like an explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't mind one. I mean, I know some of the things he said would have had us getting a round in with Ken Ham to discuss the loon in the corner, but still, he was only here for a couple of days.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 21 2007,17:42

My hunch is this had something to do with it:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: IanBrown_101 on Sep. 21 2007,17:44

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 21 2007,23:42)
My hunch is this had something to do with it:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Didn't SS say he actually believed all he wrote, but jazzed it up a bit to get an extra rise?

I know it's a jackass thing to do, but still, Paley just made shit up and got awa with it for months.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 21 2007,17:45

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Sep. 21 2007,17:41)
Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 21 2007,23:34)
Funny, I just got a private message from SS saying that he was banned.

At first, I was thinking of a stupid joke, then a noticed his group name "Pariah".

Was did he do?
Can he still post private messages?

EDIT: OK Ian.
Still, I'd like an explanation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't mind one. I mean, I know some of the things he said would have had us getting a round in with Ken Ham to discuss the loon in the corner, but still, he was only here for a couple of days.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. And if we are to become like UD, at least he deserved some:

SS is no longer with us - Wes

or

SS, you're outta here, homo! - SteveS

;)

No kidding, what happened?
Posted by: qetzal on Sep. 21 2007,18:05

I don't think ss should be a pariah either, unless he's done something I'm not aware of.

I think there's a good chance he's a troll, as alleged. If there's more evidence of that, I'd like to see it posted here. Even then, I wouldn't support this action. We can always choose to ignore him, and to date, I'm not aware that he's been disruptive on any other threads.

If he's done something more egregious than what we've seen on this thread, can the mods please explain?

If not, I respectfully request he be given back his posting priveleges.

Not because I think he's posting anything of value, but because I want this board to maintain the highest standards of tolerance. GOP was much more deserving of being banned, but wasn't. Let's please not stoop to UD's level in this case, either.

My $0.02.
Posted by: fusilier on Sep. 21 2007,19:02

Quote (qetzal @ Sep. 21 2007,18:05)
I don't think ss should be a pariah either, unless he's done something I'm not aware of.

I think there's a good chance he's a troll, as alleged. If there's more evidence of that, I'd like to see it posted here. Even then, I wouldn't support this action. We can always choose to ignore him, and to date, I'm not aware that he's been disruptive on any other threads.

If he's done something more egregious than what we've seen on this thread, can the mods please explain?

If not, I respectfully request he be given back his posting priveleges.

Not because I think he's posting anything of value, but because I want this board to maintain the highest standards of tolerance. GOP was much more deserving of being banned, but wasn't. Let's please not stoop to UD's level in this case, either.

My $0.02.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just got asked for details by the listmoms, I didn't make any decisions.  I do know that he's posted the exact same stuff at Richard Dawkins' official forum, and at umpty other places, and been banned elsewhere.

Here's an old "private message" from a year or so ago, at CARM.  It took me a while to dig it out, since that feature has been disabled.

[QUOTE=fusilier;1172951]  One chance to apologize, supersport.   I don't like to hide behind mods, so here's your opportunity to be a man and admit what you did is wrong.

fusilier
James 2:24[/QUOTE]

Oh lighten up fuzzy liar...I've been called lots worse on bulletin
boards, like stupidplurt and snotsport.  Its all a game anyway, I just
like to have fun at work waiting for phone calls.  coadie may believe
this crap, but I don't.

supersport
"The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that
is, nonevolution)."SJ Gould


fusilier
James :24
Posted by: skeptic on Sep. 22 2007,01:24

still, I have to say I feel somewhat paranoid now.  I've never dreamed that getting banned was that easy.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 22 2007,05:21

Well, the troll came here to have fun pissing us off.

Looks like he deserved it.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 22 2007,15:51

Two, four, six, eight
Let’s get on with this debate!

Was just released from the pariah fort
So I can cheer for Supersport!

So, stop your evasion...
or admit to creation.

This is what < you’ve waited for >
don’t you dare show him the door!
[Wes...see! I “substantiated that claim!!”]

I’ve found I seriously suck at rhyme
perhaps I should consider mime.
[copyright infringement...credit to Kristine]

Gooooooo Supersport!
[And, isn’t he a < cutie?! >]

YEAH!!!!



[Does seriously outstanding cheerleading jump (for a 42 yr. old)...

....arrrrggghhhhh*%##@ !!...

...lands on "expansive backside"]

Gosh darn it!  It’s, like, really difficult to do my jumps in these freaking heels, Richard Hughes!!!!

***She’s  baaaaaaccccccckkkkkkk!!---Wes released me from teh piranha pinata pimento pariah cage!***
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 22 2007,16:07

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,15:51)
So, stop your evasion...
or admit to creation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Q: Who'd look at this thread and accuse the anti-SuperSport coalition of evasion?

A: Ftk.  :p
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 22 2007,16:12

HI OLDMAN!!

My golly gosh I've misssseeeedddd you!

*kisses**
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 22 2007,16:18

What the heII?

SS banned without notice, and now Ftk is back!  :O
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 22 2007,16:19

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,16:12)
HI OLDMAN!!

My golly gosh I've misssseeeedddd you!

*kisses**
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HEy! PLay fair  :D
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 22 2007,16:20

Hey Ftk,

This might be a great time for you to substantiate that my claim of question dodging is untrue.  Please take the requisite 3 seconds to show an example of supersport answering a question.  Examples of JoeG doing the same would be great as well (on his thread, of course).

You have made this claim that I am wrong.  In your new "show the evidence mode" I guess you'll now be showing me the proof?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 22 2007,16:22

I am going fishing for a few days.


Posted by: Nerull on Sep. 22 2007,16:23

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,15:51)
Two, four, six, eight
Let’s get on with this debate!

Was just released from the pariah fort
So I can cheer for Supersport!

So, stop your evasion...
or admit to creation.

This is what < you’ve waited for >
don’t you dare show him the door!
[Wes...see! I “substantiated that claim!!”]

I’ve found I seriously suck at rhyme
perhaps I should consider mime.
[copyright infringement...credit to Kristine]

Gooooooo Supersport!
[And, isn’t he a < cutie?! >]

YEAH!!!!



[Does seriously outstanding cheerleading jump (for a 42 yr. old)...

....arrrrggghhhhh*%##@ !!...

...lands on "expansive backside"]

Gosh darn it!  It’s, like, really difficult to do my jumps in these freaking heels, Richard Hughes!!!!

***She’s  baaaaaaccccccckkkkkkk!!---Wes released me from teh piranha pinata pimento pariah cage!***
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I take it then, FTK, that you believe Newtonian gravity takes precedence over relativity, that E=MC^2 controls the maximum speed you can travel, and that *all* scientists are wicked evil atheists who are in a big conspiracy? (That includes your hero Brown).
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 22 2007,16:23

< http://i17.photobucket.com/albums....0292361 >
So this is supersport?
He looks smarter than he is. You two are buddies, eh?
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 22 2007,16:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I take it then, FTK, that you believe Newtonian gravity takes precedence over relativity, that E=MC^2 controls the maximum speed you can travel, and that *all* scientists are wicked evil atheists who are in a big conspiracy? (That includes your hero Brown).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



She's open to all possibilities in these areas.  Including that E=MC^2 is the relationship between molasses cookies eaten by Santa and the number of floating forests Brown has lived on.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 22 2007,16:37

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,15:51)
Two, four, six, eight
Let’s get on with this debate!

Was just released from the pariah fort
So I can cheer for Supersport!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too late.  :p
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 22 2007,17:11

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 22 2007,16:23)
< http://i17.photobucket.com/albums....0292361 >
So this is supersport?
He looks smarter than he is. You two are buddies, eh?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know him personally...if you were paying attention, his picture was posted on this thread.

We did PM each other a couple times from the pariah cage.  That place seriously sucked!...stuffy, cold, lonely.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 22 2007,19:15

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 22 2007,16:20)
Hey Ftk,

This might be a great time for you to substantiate that my claim of question dodging is untrue.  Please take the requisite 3 seconds to show an example of supersport answering a question.  Examples of JoeG doing the same would be great as well (on his thread, of course).

You have made this claim that I am wrong.  In your new "show the evidence mode" I guess you'll now be showing me the proof?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blipster, just because you don't like or agree with a person's answer doesn't mean they didn't give one.

And, dude, I am all about substantiation this time around.  Here are just some of his answers...

< Here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >

Now, here is what I want to know.  Why was he banned??  Isn't it Wes who made the "I'm with the banned" buttons?  Don't you guys complain *all the time* about Davescots banning policy?  What the heck is going on around here?

Wes, are you going to address this, or are you going to pull a Lilley??
Posted by: hooligans on Sep. 22 2007,19:44

Hey Ftk ,

Can youfind out what Dembski's take on his pantsing at OU is?

Thanks
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 22 2007,20:12

Quote (hooligans @ Sep. 22 2007,19:44)
Hey Ftk ,

Can youfind out what Dembski's take on his pantsing at OU is?

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find it a bit odd that you guys are so interested in the OU lecture.  It's not like it's the first he's done.  Shoot, I attended his lecture at KU last year.  Darwinists lined up in droves at the mic that time as well.  Dembski didn't blog about that lecture either that I remember.  

Does he blog about every speaking engagement?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2007,20:18

FTK IZ BAK CUZ MI FAIRY MOANS HAS A FLAVOURS.



K BAI.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 22 2007,20:21

[blushing]

Hi Richard... :)  

[/blushing]

[swoons]
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2007,20:39

Hottie_dressed_as_teh_sexi_nurse sez:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I find it a bit odd that you guys are so interested in the OU lecture
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hopefully ERV will have her audio up soon, so we can all "consider the evidence"
Posted by: carlsonjok on Sep. 22 2007,20:40

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 22 2007,20:18)
FTK IZ BAK CUZ MI FAIRY MOANS HAS A FLAVOURS.



K BAI.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAR HAR HAR. THIS IS YOU.

Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 22 2007,20:47

SHUT UP LOOSER. HAR HAR THIS IS YOU


IZ YOU BIN RIDED BI A MIDGET?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 22 2007,21:19

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,19:15)
   
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 22 2007,16:20)
Hey Ftk,

This might be a great time for you to substantiate that my claim of question dodging is untrue.  Please take the requisite 3 seconds to show an example of supersport answering a question.  Examples of JoeG doing the same would be great as well (on his thread, of course).

You have made this claim that I am wrong.  In your new "show the evidence mode" I guess you'll now be showing me the proof?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blipster, just because you don't like or agree with a person's answer doesn't mean they didn't give one.

And, dude, I am all about substantiation this time around.  Here are just some of his answers...

< Here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Baloney. Answers which are just opinions, unsupported by facts, are NOT answers, even "this time around". Click on those 9 links and you find that sporty's answers were, in reality

#1- a bald-faced assertion unsupported by evidence
#2 - answering a question by posing another question, which was not an answer
#3 - an opinion, later shown to be complete bs
#4 - a busted link, perhaps you copied the URL wrong
#5 - an opinion that a dinosaur fossil is 6.8 thousand years old, unsupported by evidence
#6 - an opinion, later debunked
#7 - a quotemine of an article, which was shown not to back up his assertion at all
#8 - same bs as #7, repeated for comic effect?
#9 - a bunch of bs which avoided an actual answer

Furthermore, he avoided ever backing up his claim that mental processes can generate life instantly, even though he was asked about this at least 9 or 10 times.

Sounds like your kind of guy.

Welcome back.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 22 2007,22:12

FTK - You're back! You're giddy!

I already commented on your expulsion, but won't again because Wesley sends raptors to pluck your scalp when you do.  

It always was love-hate, you and AtBC, now same as it ever was. A few rascals here turn you on (and turn on you) more than any 10 creationist stuffed shirts. They stir your soul, and you stir up AtBC, and both keep spinning long after the party's over. What IS that?

Here's a little advice. Just get with real evolutionary biology and come over to the dark side. You just KNOW you WANT to. You'd be able to argue from a position that actually has basis in science, you'd leave behind that nagging worry that you've committed thousands of hours to studying abject horseshit, and would no longer be associated with the phony psychotic trollery of the likes of supersport. You can even remain a committed Christian and hang out at your church.

We'd still pull your pigtails, but it wouldn't be in a mean way.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 22 2007,22:26



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Answers which are just opinions, unsupported by facts, are NOT answers, even "this time around".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Holy smokin' monkey...then the ToE is in a whole lotta trouble, no??
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 22 2007,22:39

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 22 2007,22:12)
FTK - You're back! You're giddy!

I already commented on your expulsion, but won't again because Wesley sends raptors to pluck your scalp when you do.  

It always was love-hate, you and AtBC, now same as it ever was. A few rascals here turn you on (and turn on you) more than any 10 creationist stuffed shirts. They stir your soul, and you stir up AtBC, and both keep spinning long after the party's over. What IS that?

Here's a little advice. Just get with real evolutionary biology and come over to the dark side. You just KNOW you WANT to. You'd be able to argue from a position that actually has basis in science, you'd leave behind that nagging worry that you've committed thousands of hours to studying abject horseshit, and would no longer be associated with the phony psychotic trollery of the likes of supersport. You can even remain a committed Christian and hang out at your church.

We'd still pull your pigtails, but it wouldn't be in a mean way.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, Bill, you are one of only a couple people who understood my Lenny parody.  Thank you for that.

As far as coming over to the dark side, I have a much more difficult plan in mind.

I'm going to drag the whole lot of you out of that swamp that's foggin' your minds and into the light....



Now relax, while I work my magic...[God knows it's going to take a friggin miracle to pull this one off.]
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 23 2007,01:20

Ftk,

I know you don't care for me and don't like my attitude.  However, I was going to post on your supersport answers links.  Fortunately, I finished reading the thread before I posted.  Ditto what Albatrosity2 said.

Anytime you're willing to post actual answers that superturd or JoeMental posted, I'll be here.

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE remember that opinions aren't fact.  Also remember that evidence is necessary for anything you claim to be objective truth.

Thanks for continuing to be ignorant.
Posted by: jeannot on Sep. 23 2007,03:43

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,22:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Answers which are just opinions, unsupported by facts, are NOT answers, even "this time around".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Holy smokin' monkey...then the ToE is in a whole lotta trouble, no??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So it's your position that the ToE is unsupported by facts?
Are you going to back that up or just retract?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 23 2007,03:53

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,22:26)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Answers which are just opinions, unsupported by facts, are NOT answers, even "this time around".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Holy smokin' monkey...then the ToE is in a whole lotta trouble, no??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As we're still in the "honeymoon" period (shudder) of your return FTK, i'll cut you some slack but..

If the ToE is in trouble because it's unsupported by facts then why do you not let the same thing bother you when cheerleading for Walt Brown?

It's "unsupported by facts" all the way down with Brown yet you appear to have no problem with that.

And I could say exactly the same thing about your religion. What's more supported by verifiable facts, Jebus returning from the dead (it was writ in a book) or this article here picked at random because it had "evolution" in the title?


< Adaptive evolution of centromere proteins in plants and animals >

Do you see my point yet?

Anyway, I think it was a joke comment, but do you see my point as to why you can wind some people up (including me)?

I look forwards to not discussing the "speculation taught as fact" issue also.
Posted by: Steverino on Sep. 23 2007,07:22

FTK,

Welcome back.  I'm never in favor of banning here...although, I didn't know the exact reasons.

It's so very sad that you view the side that can support its theory, the only real theory, with evidence, data and research as the "dark side".

Doesn't say much for your ability to critically think or to not be duped by BS because that what you need to believe.

I think it would be best if you have an issue...that you present one issue at a time and let the dedate runs its course on just that one issue before heading off in another direction.

So, what shall it be...SLOT...Age of the Earth....IC...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Sep. 23 2007,08:01

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 23 2007,08:22)
It's so very sad that you view the side that can support its theory, the only real theory, with evidence, data and research as the "dark side".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The "dark side" came from me. FTK advocates a place characterized by lots of lens flare.

FTK: Join me, and we can rule the galaxy as father and daughter. Come with me. It's the only way.
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 23 2007,11:44

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,16:12)
HI OLDMAN!!

My golly gosh I've misssseeeedddd you!

*kisses**
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever else you say about FTK, I think it's clear that she hangs out here because we heathens are lot more interesting than your average UDer.

It reminds me of this crazy reactionary friend I used to have who'd call me on the phone ranting about the evils of liberals and nonchristians all the time. When I asked him why he felt this way when ALL his friends were liberals and nonchristians, he had no answer.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 23 2007,11:46

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 23 2007,03:43)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,22:26)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Answers which are just opinions, unsupported by facts, are NOT answers, even "this time around".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Holy smokin' monkey...then the ToE is in a whole lotta trouble, no??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So it's your position that the ToE is unsupported by facts?
Are you going to back that up or just retract?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think this is great place to start, Ftk.  You made this statement after your re-instatement--in the new fact based incarnation.

So, I hate to bring it up, but I don't have to since jeannot already did.  Are you going back on the pirahna list so soon after coming back?

Fact 1: < Speciation has been observed. >

While this fact alone certainly doesn't sum up the whole of ToE, it does SUPPORT THE THEORY of ToE.

So, will you now acknowledge this fact and retract your above statement or will you give us a rundown on how this fact does not--in fact--support ToE?

I believe the choice is yours again.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 23 2007,11:48

FtK find RTH Sexi_Hawt
DHeddle Finds Tarden Chatterbox Sexi_Hawt

We have a "broad appeal"
Posted by: someotherguy on Sep. 23 2007,11:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 23 2007,11:48)
DHeddle Finds Tarden Chatterbox Sexi_Hawt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think this revelation may come as a surprise to DHeddle. :D
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 23 2007,12:00

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 23 2007,11:55)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 23 2007,11:48)
DHeddle Finds Tarden Chatterbox Sexi_Hawt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think this revelation may come as a surprise to DHeddle. :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But NOT Tarden?
:p
Posted by: Arden Chatfield on Sep. 23 2007,12:18

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 23 2007,12:00)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 23 2007,11:55)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 23 2007,11:48)
DHeddle Finds Tarden Chatterbox Sexi_Hawt
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think this revelation may come as a surprise to DHeddle. :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But NOT Tarden?
:p
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HA HA THIS IS YOU:


Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 23 2007,12:21

'AAAAAAAAAAAROLD!

You dirty old man!
Posted by: slpage on Sep. 24 2007,11:46

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,19:15)
Now, here is what I want to know.  Why was he banned??  Isn't it Wes who made the "I'm with the banned" buttons?  Don't you guys complain *all the time* about Davescots banning policy?  What the heck is going on around here?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm....

Let's see...

A dude that literally cuts and pastes thread-opening posts on half a dozen discussion boards, spam-trolls with 158 posts in 3 days (he has thousands of posts at CARM), evades, ignores replies, shifts goalposts, changes topics, etc., is banned one of only a couple of people ever banned here -  and you want to compare that to your extreme mesomorph pal Dave Springer who has banned more people than post at UD for such infractions as not agreeing with him on the the definition of a word?

Incredible...
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 24 2007,12:13

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 23 2007,04:39)
SNIP!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh lawks. FTK's back? I predict evasion and smugness. I still have a swathe of perfectly polite questions for you FtK, when you're ready that is.

Of course in the interim you can convert me to the light or whatever it is you think you represent. It should be funny to watch. I suggest you try it.

Louis
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 24 2007,12:13

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 22 2007,21:19)
Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,19:15)
   
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 22 2007,16:20)
Hey Ftk,

This might be a great time for you to substantiate that my claim of question dodging is untrue.  Please take the requisite 3 seconds to show an example of supersport answering a question.  Examples of JoeG doing the same would be great as well (on his thread, of course).

You have made this claim that I am wrong.  In your new "show the evidence mode" I guess you'll now be showing me the proof?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blipster, just because you don't like or agree with a person's answer doesn't mean they didn't give one.

And, dude, I am all about substantiation this time around.  Here are just some of his answers...

< Here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Baloney. Answers which are just opinions, unsupported by facts, are NOT answers, even "this time around". Click on those 9 links and you find that sporty's answers were, in reality

#1- a bald-faced assertion unsupported by evidence
#2 - answering a question by posing another question, which was not an answer
#3 - an opinion, later shown to be complete bs
#4 - a busted link, perhaps you copied the URL wrong
#5 - an opinion that a dinosaur fossil is 6.8 thousand years old, unsupported by evidence
#6 - an opinion, later debunked
#7 - a quotemine of an article, which was shown not to back up his assertion at all
#8 - same bs as #7, repeated for comic effect?
#9 - a bunch of bs which avoided an actual answer

Furthermore, he avoided ever backing up his claim that mental processes can generate life instantly, even though he was asked about this at least 9 or 10 times.

Sounds like your kind of guy.

Welcome back.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, Ftk, what about it?  Are you going to let this stand?  Normal, rational persons who really are concerned with education and the kids see this sort of thing as a progressive argument.

I asserted that supersport, JoeG, and yourself dodge questions (as evidenced by many threads here and other places).

You said "no we don't".

I said, "Fine.  Could you provide some examples of questions being answered?"

After about 6,000 years (only capped at this number by the obvious age of the Earth), you provided a list of what you claim to be supersport answers.

Albatrosity2 showed that these were not, in fact, answers, but merely a slew of assertions and personal opinions.

It would now be on your shoulders to counter his (and my) claim.

Oh, wait, you don't have time...you've done it before...it doesn't matter...there's a conspiracy that counters whatever you say....  Let me translate that for you:

You have the attention span of a two year old are too lazy to continue an argument that you aren't smart enough to finish.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 24 2007,22:19



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You have the attention span of a two year old are too lazy to continue an argument that you aren't smart enough to finish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ROTFL...while that may all very well be true, I fail to see how SS answered questions any differently than the rest of you did.  Your answers were replete with a bald-faced assertions unsupported by evidence, opinions, speculation, and goodness knows that Dave is world famous for providing a < lame piece of evidence > that supposedly provides irrefutable *facts* for the question being asked, and then immediately turns the tables from defense to offense by slamming back a question and < harping > < on > < it > < indefinitely > because he knows that the question he is asking cannot be supported with empirical evidence any more than the one he is trying to answer, as if somehow that makes his answer more believeable.
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 24 2007,22:34

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:18)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:14)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 18 2007,08:09)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,08:03)
 
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:36)
   
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,07:14)
     
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 18 2007,07:05)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....not you people....or Ted Haggard...Senator Larry Craig...Senator David Vitter...

unSupersport, you are a tard.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the only tards -- whatever that is -- are the people who believe in darwinism without even a shred of evidence that their chosen mechanism can accomplish what's advertised.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, "Tard" would be those too ignorant to acknowledge what is and is not evidence.

Please post any evidence that supports YEC or ID.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the evidence of YEC is the simple fact that lifeforms could not have built up materialistically over time.  There is no physical way (as evidence of this thread that mutations can't do it.)  Therefore, life must have appeared instantly by way of mental processes.  The only question now is when it happened (like that really matters)...but I would say YEC is certainly a possibility since the dinosaurs have been unearthed with soft tissue and proteins in their bones, meaning some of the most "ancient" of earths creatures still have organic material hanging off them.   Also, as far as human evolution goes, there are a grand total of about 200 Neanderthal individuals unearthed, about 25 or so of the so-called "homo erectus" unearthed ---- these people, if they evolved into modern humans would have had to number in the multi, multi millions.......so where the heck are they?  Evos will come back and say that fossilization is rare, and I would agree -- it only happens when it floods or when lots of water is around.  But you guys cannot count evidence that doesn't exist -- and the evidence shows there's simply not enough dead humans in the ground for evolution to have ever dreamed of happening.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence shows that you have no answer to my point regarding bacteria and toxic environments.

Nice try to handwaive it away 10/10.

Do you have a reference/link for the dinosaurs with "organic material hanging off them"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you have yet to show that they aren't degenerating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Supersport, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?

Sanfords generic entropy puts an upper limit on the number of available reproduction events.

Supersport, I know they are not degenerating because they are still there after the maximum amount of reproductive events Sanford says are available to them.

I ask again, how long do you think it takes the average bacteria to reproduce?

And how many generations does that give us per year?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh look.  I found a spot where oldman explicitly answers a challenge from supersport.  As yet, supersport has yet to acknowledge that this point was even made.

And that took me 35 seconds of searching on this thread alone.  Would you care to back up your assertion that supersport's questions go unanswered?
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 25 2007,06:16

FtK

Claiming that it is lame is one thing, and you are good at that. Providing evidence against it is another, and I note that you conveniently left that stuff out of your post. As I recall, you have a copy of Carroll's book, where my "lame piece of evidence" is found.

So let's check the goalposts before we start. Sporty asked    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I challenge evolutionists to show me ONE mutation ever documented in the history of science that has created a new, beneficial, selectable morphological addition to an existing body part.    .    .    .    (a mutation that alters physical, outward appearance in a beneficial way. )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I responded    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Endless Forms Most beautiful, by Sean Carroll, has several examples of this. One of them is a mutation in the regulatory sequence of a gene that give more pigmentation to a section of a fruit fly wing. Since fruit flies use their wings in mating displays, a change in the pigmentation can have profound effects on mating success. But Carroll describes a phylogenetic tree showing how this mutation occurred, when it occurred, and the resulting speciation events that occurred.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, in your new incarnation that requires you to back up assertions, or retract them, please show me how that example does not address sporty's question. Thanks in advance.

As for this characterization  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
immediately turns the tables from defense to offense by slamming back a question and < harping > < on > < it > < indefinitely > because he knows that the question he is asking cannot be supported with empirical evidence any more than the one he is trying to answer, as if somehow that makes his answer more believeable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


interested readers might note two things. Firstly, I had been asking that question for some time previously, and he had never answered it. Honest discussions require that questions get addressed; dishonest discussants require constant reminders of that. Secondly, as noted above, I answered his question with evidence-based material. I suspect that for most folks, compared to a non-answer, that evidence-based answers are "more believable." Apparently not for you, however.

Anyway, sorry to stay in character, but I really would like to know how my answer to sporty's OP is lame. If that is just your opinion, and you can't back it up with facts or other evidence, you haven't kept up your end of the bargain.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 25 2007,06:32

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2007,19:15)
Quote (blipey @ Sep. 22 2007,16:20)
Hey Ftk,

This might be a great time for you to substantiate that my claim of question dodging is untrue.  Please take the requisite 3 seconds to show an example of supersport answering a question.  Examples of JoeG doing the same would be great as well (on his thread, of course).

You have made this claim that I am wrong.  In your new "show the evidence mode" I guess you'll now be showing me the proof?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blipster, just because you don't like or agree with a person's answer doesn't mean they didn't give one.

And, dude, I am all about substantiation this time around.  Here are just some of his answers...

< Here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >, < here >

Now, here is what I want to know.  Why was he banned??  Isn't it Wes who made the "I'm with the banned" buttons?  Don't you guys complain *all the time* about Davescots banning policy?  What the heck is going on around here?

Wes, are you going to address this, or are you going to pull a Lilley??
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh My. I thought this was a joke, where FTK was saying "yep, you are right, those guys were trolls".

I did not realize FTK was seriously saying that SS had in fact answered points.

FTK, you've just gone down a few more notches, and I did not know those notches were even available!
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 25 2007,09:19

Off Topic:

Dave, hey, I was planning to scoot out of work early today and come up to KSU to listen to Miller's lecture on MN, but I'm just too busy to take off early.  

Why the heck didn't they schedule it for the evening?  Don't you have some pull around there?  Get them to schedule this stuff in the evening so I don't have to take off work....

As for your last post, it'll have to wait...yes, yes, evasion, blah, blah, blah...whatever.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 25 2007,09:31

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 25 2007,09:19)
Off Topic:

Dave, hey, I was planning to scoot out of work early today and come up to KSU to listen to Miller's lecture on MN, but I'm just too busy to take off early.  

Why the heck didn't they schedule it for the evening?  Don't you have some pull around there?  Get them to schedule this stuff in the evening so I don't have to take off work....

As for your last post, it'll have to wait...yes, yes, evasion, blah, blah, blah...whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FtK

Too bad you can't make it, but I've got no clout with our geology department. Or anyone else, for that matter...

For the onlookers, this talk  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's All the Fuss About Methodological Naturalism?: Dr. Keith B. Miller, Department of Geology, Kansas State University. Tuesday, September 25, 2007, 4:00pm, Thompson Hall 213. Sponsored by the Department of Geology
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


should be quite good. Keith is an evangelical Christian. He is also a scientist, and an excellent teacher. According to the Geology Dept. website,  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He frequently teaches service courses for the department, including a section of Natural Disasters, and has originated a course on dinosaurs. His research interests are in terrigenous rocks and paleosols. He is also particularly interested in issues in science education and fundamentalist opposition to evolution, and served as editor for a book on the subject.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Too bad you have to miss it, FtK; I suspect that you and your kids would enjoy the talk, and you might even learn something (scientific) about dinosaurs
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Sep. 25 2007,09:36

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 25 2007,09:19)
Off Topic:

Dave, hey, I was planning to scoot out of work early today and come up to KSU to listen to Miller's lecture on MN, but I'm just too busy to take off early.  

Why the heck didn't they schedule it for the evening?  Don't you have some pull around there?  Get them to schedule this stuff in the evening so I don't have to take off work....

As for your last post, it'll have to wait...yes, yes, evasion, blah, blah, blah...whatever.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, seems more like a private message to me then a forum post.

blah, blah, blah. whatever.
Posted by: Ftk on Sep. 25 2007,09:36

I know he's a Christian, Dave....I've met him in the past.  And, believe me, it's absolutely *killing* me not to be able to get out of here....how long is he lecturing?  Hour?
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 25 2007,12:03

I've just read this entire thread at the behest of Erasmus FCD.

I'm very glad I was on holiday.

I should do it much more often.

Louis
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 25 2007,13:19

Welcome back, Louis.  Sorry you're not still on holiday, and that you read this thread straight through without a whisky.  Wow.  Someone beat the spellcheck on this board--it wants me to put an "e" in whisky!
Posted by: silverspoon on Sep. 26 2007,07:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, in your new incarnation that requires you to back up assertions, or retract them, please show me how that example does not address sporty's question. Thanks in advance.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did this ever get an answer from Ftk?

Consider this a bump incase Ftk simply forgot to back up, or retract.
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Sep. 26 2007,07:54

Quote (silverspoon @ Sep. 26 2007,07:52)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, in your new incarnation that requires you to back up assertions, or retract them, please show me how that example does not address sporty's question. Thanks in advance.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did this ever get an answer from Ftk?

Consider this a bump incase Ftk simply forgot to back up, or retract.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No answer yet.  But I understand that she has been busy...
Posted by: silverspoon on Sep. 26 2007,08:16

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 26 2007,07:54)
Quote (silverspoon @ Sep. 26 2007,07:52)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So, in your new incarnation that requires you to back up assertions, or retract them, please show me how that example does not address sporty's question. Thanks in advance.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did this ever get an answer from Ftk?

Consider this a bump incase Ftk simply forgot to back up, or retract.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No answer yet.  But I understand that she has been busy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No answer yet.  But I understand that she has been busy...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe it’s the old J. C. Fields ploy

Go away, kid. You bother me

But I’m always hopeful
Posted by: blipey on Sep. 26 2007,08:29

You mean W.C. Fields, my little chickadee.
Posted by: Louis on Sep. 26 2007,09:17

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 25 2007,19:19)
Welcome back, Louis.  Sorry you're not still on holiday, and that you read this thread straight through without a whisky.  Wow.  Someone beat the spellcheck on this board--it wants me to put an "e" in whisky!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cheers Blipey.

I did read it without whisky, but I didn't read it without < zivania >.

Thankfully the alcohol spared me from damaging the sensitive bits of my brain with tard. Unfortunately it didn't stop me damaging them with alcohol. Oh well.

Louis
Posted by: Darth Robo on Oct. 02 2007,09:40

Oh, man!  Have I missed Supersport?

:O

Hey, Supey!  How ya doin?   :p
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 27 2017,21:52

No hablo whatever the heck that is.

ETA Never mind; it's not there now.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.