Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > The "I Believe In God" Thread

Pages: (25) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,12:12    Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 22 2010,00:41) Oh, you root for anything.  What about the time you started up that torrid affair with that parsnip? If you can't turnip any pics, it didn't happen. The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,12:47    Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 22 2010,10:12) Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 22 2010,00:41) Oh, you root for anything.  What about the time you started up that torrid affair with that parsnip? If you can't turnip any pics, it didn't happen. The MadPanda, FCD It's on Youtuber. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Michael_Behe Posts: 2 Joined: Dec. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,14:28    1. natural selection can destroy 2. therefore it can build this is a fallacy

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,14:33    Quote (Michael_Behe @ Dec. 22 2010,14:28) 1. natural selection can destroy 2. therefore it can build this is a fallacy Duh, liar. if 1. had included the word "only" AND you'd proven it, you might have a point. Even "your" latest paper showed several examples of increasing complexity. Seems you don't even know what the people you are blindly following are saying. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,14:49    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 22 2010,14:33) Quote Quote (Michael_Behe @ Dec. 22 2010,14:28) 1. natural selection can destroy 2. therefore it can build this is a fallacy Duh, liar. if 1. had included the word "only" AND you'd proven it, you might have a point. Even "your" latest paper showed several examples of increasing complexity. Seems you don't even know what the people you are blindly following are saying. Just an FYI, Old Man, but "Michael_Behe" is Legion, for he is many. That is to say that the name is one of several sock monikers that some tard was using over at PT to toss up a bunch of irrelevant/strawman/question begging questions. Just so you know. And for the record, he's quite right in principle - there's no logical reason to conclude that a process that can destroy can also build. Of course, since no such assumption is made in evolutionary theory, is comment is rather moot as far as it goes. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,14:53    Quote (sledgehammer @ Dec. 22 2010,03:07) Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 21 2010,17:19)   Quote (Kris @ on the Behe Thread) That love, compassion, and justice from the six sources are just pouring out of you, Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist hypocrite. LMAO!! Oh well, what can one expect from someone who modifies their morals and belief system to fit whatever they want to get away with? Ya know, you sound a lot like a catholic pedophile or a politician. Ring any bells? The double spacing between sentences is another dead giveaway. Hey! I Do That Too! All the time* *damn! -------------- "Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G "I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis "The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,15:20    Dear JoeG, IDGuy, Kris, Michael Behe, Fatheadedmoron, or whatever other name you're going by today, This is a box of rocks: It is smarter than you. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,15:22    Ah, I see someone is bearing false witness. Gotta love these people!  So very post-modern about their own lofty ethical standards. Go read a proper science textbook, Trollish One, and do not return until thou mayst honestly profess comprehension of the contents thereof.  Thou art worth but a paltry 845XP divided amongst the party. The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,16:58    IBIG,  No one knows EXACTLY what the prebiotic Earth was like.  However there are large variety of things that we DO know.  Furthermore, over the last 50 years many, many variations of these experiments all with slightly different conditions.  If it is chemically possible, then it will happen. Now do you (or "Michael Behe") have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design? Do you even understand why these questions are important? Do you know Demsbki's math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved? Do you understand why these question are important? Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can't be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don't accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say... why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let's get on with it. You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Michael_Behe Posts: 2 Joined: Dec. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,18:50    Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 22 2010,16:58) IBIG,  No one knows EXACTLY what the prebiotic Earth was like.  However there are large variety of things that we DO know.  Furthermore, over the last 50 years many, many variations of these experiments all with slightly different conditions.  If it is chemically possible, then it will happen. Now do you (or "Michael Behe") have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design? Do you even understand why these questions are important? Do you know Demsbki's math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved? Do you understand why these question are important? Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can't be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don't accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say... why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let's get on with it. You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it. im going to keep my response short because im on the road promoting my book the edge of evolution and i only have my iphone, thus i have to write using bad grammar, so it takes 10 times the length to write as usual. evidence for design: if u see a bridge i can say with certainty that it required foresight. u cant build a bridge using trial and error. intelligence is the only thing that has foresight. the cell is like a bridge: all parts must work together to achieve a goal. as the bridge was being built the parts were put in place with foresight. this is what coyne said while reveiwing my latest book: 1. i dont know how the immune system evolved 2. therefore i know that ns did it hes just using a darwin of the gaps arguement

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,19:04    http://www.naturalbridgeva.com/ I suspect that may not be the real Dr Behe. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,19:10    Posting from the EU? I doubt it. Posting privileges have been revoked. If the real Mike Behe wants an account (heh), I'll nuke the troll's account then. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,19:26    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 22 2010,19:10) Posting from the EU? I doubt it. Posting privileges have been revoked. If the real Mike Behe wants an account (heh), I'll nuke the troll's account then. Good thing to Wes.  That guy was several orders of magnitude below pathetic. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 22 2010,19:32    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 22 2010,20:10) Posting from the EU? I doubt it. Posting privileges have been revoked. If the real Mike Behe wants an account (heh), I'll nuke the troll's account then. That would be epically funny. ...but having seen him in person (three years after the trial) repeat the same nonsense he spewed at Dover like the trial never happened and he'd never had his ass handed to him in Federal Court, I suspect there would be little reason to expect anything interesting or even novel from the real Behe. So in the end, not very different from trollboy above. ETA: Well, maybe a little more unjustified pomposity. Edited by Lou FCD on Dec. 22 2010,20:37 -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Cubist Posts: 558 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2010,02:19    I find it amusing that "Michael Behe" replied to a comment that was directed at IBIG, as if he were just continuing a conversation, without so much as a "I'm not this 'IBIG' person, but..." disclaimer.

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2010,03:06    I never even suspected that MB, at PT or at AtBc might be the real MJB; if nothing else, the lack of a  'J' between the M and B convinced me. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2010,04:30    Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 19 2010,22:27) If you want a rich field of semi-literate creationists, register for the "The Shreveport Times". Delightful southern hospitality. There's a fellow at the ST who thinks that evolutionary science is not neutral concerning religion and thus should be excluded by the courts from being taught in school. I have this response over there: Quote I assume public schools in your area teach that the earth orbits the sun, and not vice versa. This is historically "not neutral" to specific religious dogmas and has a documented history of objections from clerics. I assume public schools in your area teach Newton's laws of motion underwriting orbital mechanics. This is historically "not neutral" to specific religious dogmas and has a documented history of objections from clerics. Other things historically "not neutral" to specific religious dogmas include the shape of the earth, use of lightning rods, anesthesia, and evolution of language. What happened in those instances? That's where you'll find your answer of what happens in any present instance of ongoing disconnect between religious dogma and intersubjectively testable reality. Minus the ability of the clergy to put people under house arrest seen in the first cited instance, of course; I'm pointing to the long-term outcome. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,09:37    IBIG Quote Moving the goal posts again? Doesn’t sound like integrity to me. All I am asking is for you to answer what should be extremely rudimentary questions. Which obviously you can’t answer them, so evidently the evidence doesn’t exist! IBIG, I haven't moved the goalposts.  They are exactly the same place they always are. You are challenged to support your position (whatever that is, because you still haven't stated it, though I think you a YEC). There is no evidence for ID.  There is no evidence that much of the Bible is anything more than myth. There is no evidence for miracles or anything else. As far as your questions, I've answered them, many, many times.  You REFUSE to discuss the papers I've provided you with.  It's not my problem if you can't handle the truth. You have no position and you have yet to show any idea what science even is, much less be able to discuss it intelligently.  You define and defend a position and we'll talk about it.  Because you sure can't discuss evolution. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,09:50    Quote NICE DODGE!!! You can’t answer the questions, so you resort to your usual tactics of diverting attention, or attacking the person questioning. Just admit that you don’t know the answer to my questions and we will move on. It's not a dodge.  As I said, I have provided you with no less than 70+ papers regarding these topics. Just because you don't read them or want to discuss them doesn't mean that I haven't provided them. I have never said anything about you that wasn't observable fact either. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,12:41    Face it: we're dealing with someone who can't tell the difference between an evidence based statement that includes incredulity and the 'argument from incredulity' logical fallacy. In fact, we're dealing with someone who can't tell the difference between a psychotic break and communion with his imaginary friend!  (Remember what he said he'd do if his god ordered it?) I doubt he's even capable of having an intelligent and civil conversation over, say, whether or not the Analects of Confucius offer a superior moral and ethical model for society than Biggy's favorite magic book.  Not that utter ignorance of the Analects would stop him from spewing... The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,14:28    IBIG Quote Aren’t scientists attempting to create new manmade life in a lab? Wouldn’t that be proof of a type of ID? If science attempting to recreate Abiogenesis is a way of testing to see if Abiogenesis is possible, then science attempting to create a new manmade life form would also demonstrate that ID is possible. You can’t have your cake and eat it:) I love how creationists think if ANYTHING happens in a lab, then it was automatically designed. That of course is totally wrong as any chemist or biologist would tell you IBIG. Please, read this paper and tell me EXACTLY where the researchers designed the RNA:  Darwinian Evolution on a Chip Failure to do this will mean that you concede the point and will not be able to use it again.  I will bring your cowardly refusal to do this up EVERY TIME you try to say anything that happens in a lab is designed. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,15:24    Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,12:41) Face it: we're dealing with someone who can't tell the difference between an evidence based statement that includes incredulity and the 'argument from incredulity' logical fallacy. In fact, we're dealing with someone who can't tell the difference between a psychotic break and communion with his imaginary friend!  (Remember what he said he'd do if his god ordered it?) I doubt he's even capable of having an intelligent and civil conversation over, say, whether or not the Analects of Confucius offer a superior moral and ethical model for society than Biggy's favorite magic book.  Not that utter ignorance of the Analects would stop him from spewing... The MadPanda, FCD I agree... honestly, the only thing more appaling that IBIG's utter lack of scientific knowledge is his complete and utter lack of theological knowledge. He doesn't even believe the bible. Hey IBIG, who is the author of Genesis and when was it written?  When you answer that, then you can claim that you are being fair by requiring the same level of evidence you require for evolution.   Of course, your faith doesn't require "that level of detail"... and funnily enough, neither does science.  We use the evidence and combine millions of pieces of evidence to develop a coherent picture of reality. You combine one poorly edited piece of information and fear of death into a mind-twisting abomination. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,16:47    IBIG Quote LOL!!! You can’t answer my questions! So much for Abiogenesis, and so much of evolution by common descent! As far as Genesis what does the date or who wrote it have to do with anything? Now this is supposedly a site defending the integrity of science, but there appears a real lack of integrity on this site. Now either answer my questions or just admit that they can’t be answered. Since you didn't get it the first time I posted this, I'll go ahead an post it again.  IBIG seemed to try to attack to categories of evidence, but failed. CATEGORIES* of Evidence of Common Descent I) Biochemical and Genetics 1) Phylogenetic Reconstruction 2) Comparative sequence analysis 3) Universal biochemical organization 4) Molecular variance patterns 5) Protein conservation 6) Psuedogenes 7) genome and gene duplication 8) common metabolic processes II) Comparative Anatomy 9) structure of comparable organisms 10) Nested hierarchies 11) Homologous structures 12) Vestigial structures 13) Evolutionary Developmental Biology 14) Embryonic Development III) Avatisms 15) designs that make no sense IV) Paleontology 16) Fossils 17) Transitional Fossils V) Geographical Distribution 18) Continental distribution 19) Island Biogeography 20) Endemism 21) Adaptive radiations 22) Ring species VI) Observed Natural Selection 23) direct observation of natural selection 24) direct observation of speciation 25) Interspecies fertility and hybridization 26) Artificial selection VII) Computational and Mathematical So get started on that list.  If you put those terms into google scholar or PNAS, I'm sure you'll get enough reading material to keep you busy for years.  Get to work. * Each category is comprised of hundreds to tens of thousands of individual pieces of evidence.  To discount the CATEGORY, you must successfully refute every single piece of evidence in the category.  Good luck -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,18:36    We should repost DS's list of questions as well, I suppose.  Not that Biggy has what it takes to handle them. Biggy: living proof that duckspeaking* isn't just a verbal phenomenon. The MadPanda, FCD * Se habla newspeak. -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

IBelieveInGod Posts: 68 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,18:39    Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 27 2010,16:47) IBIG   Quote LOL!!! You can’t answer my questions! So much for Abiogenesis, and so much of evolution by common descent! As far as Genesis what does the date or who wrote it have to do with anything? Now this is supposedly a site defending the integrity of science, but there appears a real lack of integrity on this site. Now either answer my questions or just admit that they can’t be answered. Since you didn't get it the first time I posted this, I'll go ahead an post it again.  IBIG seemed to try to attack to categories of evidence, but failed. CATEGORIES* of Evidence of Common Descent I) Biochemical and Genetics 1) Phylogenetic Reconstruction 2) Comparative sequence analysis 3) Universal biochemical organization 4) Molecular variance patterns 5) Protein conservation 6) Psuedogenes 7) genome and gene duplication 8) common metabolic processes II) Comparative Anatomy 9) structure of comparable organisms 10) Nested hierarchies 11) Homologous structures 12) Vestigial structures 13) Evolutionary Developmental Biology 14) Embryonic Development III) Avatisms 15) designs that make no sense IV) Paleontology 16) Fossils 17) Transitional Fossils V) Geographical Distribution 18) Continental distribution 19) Island Biogeography 20) Endemism 21) Adaptive radiations 22) Ring species VI) Observed Natural Selection 23) direct observation of natural selection 24) direct observation of speciation 25) Interspecies fertility and hybridization 26) Artificial selection VII) Computational and Mathematical So get started on that list.  If you put those terms into google scholar or PNAS, I'm sure you'll get enough reading material to keep you busy for years.  Get to work. * Each category is comprised of hundreds to tens of thousands of individual pieces of evidence.  To discount the CATEGORY, you must successfully refute every single piece of evidence in the category.  Good luck These are not answers to my questions. Are you having trouble reading? Please go back to Panda's Thumb and read my questions again. The questions I asked should be very rudimentary if evolution from common descent is to have any credibility. All of the things you posted have other explanations. So, answer the questions that I gave you, or just admit that you don't know.

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,18:50    Quote These are not answers to my questions. Are you having trouble reading? Please go back to Panda's Thumb and read my questions again. The questions I asked should be very rudimentary if evolution from common descent is to have any credibility. All of the things you posted have other explanations. So, answer the questions that I gave you, or just admit that you don't know. Not so fast, buster!  You still have to answer ALL of DS's questions first.  You ran away from them a few months ago, but we haven't forgotten.  I would go so far as to ask why we should bother answering your questions when we already know that you will a) lie, b) dodge answers you don't like, c) change the rules if you start losing, and d) will not understand the answers you are given, but you finally had the intestinal fortitude to show up here so I'll leave those points for later. You can throw your pity party here as well as at Panda's Thumb, and here you won't be off-topic. You should provide actual evidence of alternative explanations as well, if you want such claims to be taken seriously.  And by evidence, we do not mean quoting your magic book, invoking your imaginary friend, anecdote, analogy, or hearsay. Get to work. The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

IBelieveInGod Posts: 68 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,18:56    I'm in a giving spirit, so I will post the questions again here to make it easier for you: How did bacteria evolve? Please provide evidence that it evolved that way, and not your usual speculation! What did bacteria evolve from? Again provide actual evidence and not conjecture or speculation! How many generations are necessary for bacteria to evolve into a completely different life form? Provide actual observational evidence to support your claim, and include a link showing the life form it evolved into. When did life go from using only photosynthesis for it’s nutrition and energy, to using other lifeforms for it’s nutrition? Please provide actual evidence and not speculation! How did all of the necessary machinery evolve at once to allow that life to be able to use other lifeforms for it’s food supply, including the ability to ingest food, digest food, and eliminate waste? This one is a tough one, but it would be necessary for life to have evolve from a common ancestor. Again provide evidence! Science it about evidence, and if you don't have observational, testable evidence then you have nothing be speculation, conjecture, presuppositions, etc... You keep playing little games, so that you don't really have to answer these questions, but it won't work. If you can't answer these questions and provide real evidence and not conjecture, speculation, or presuppositions, then you have nothing.

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,18:59    Quote You keep playing little games, so that you don't really have to answer these questions, but it won't work. If you can't answer these questions and provide real evidence and not conjecture, speculation, or presuppositions, then you have nothing. This is exactly what we've been telling you all along, Biggy.  You have yet to demonstrate an understanding of this, let alone implement it yourself. Your projection is amusing and your mingled cowardice and ignorance are pathetic. Get to work on DS's questions or admit that you don't have the authority to demand such rigor. The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

IBelieveInGod Posts: 68 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,19:01    Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,18:50) Quote These are not answers to my questions. Are you having trouble reading? Please go back to Panda's Thumb and read my questions again. The questions I asked should be very rudimentary if evolution from common descent is to have any credibility. All of the things you posted have other explanations. So, answer the questions that I gave you, or just admit that you don't know. Not so fast, buster!  You still have to answer ALL of DS's questions first.  You ran away from them a few months ago, but we haven't forgotten.  I would go so far as to ask why we should bother answering your questions when we already know that you will a) lie, b) dodge answers you don't like, c) change the rules if you start losing, and d) will not understand the answers you are given, but you finally had the intestinal fortitude to show up here so I'll leave those points for later. You can throw your pity party here as well as at Panda's Thumb, and here you won't be off-topic. You should provide actual evidence of alternative explanations as well, if you want such claims to be taken seriously.  And by evidence, we do not mean quoting your magic book, invoking your imaginary friend, anecdote, analogy, or hearsay. Get to work. The MadPanda, FCD I don't have to answer anything. I'm not the scientist here, and I never claimed to be a scientist, but if you are convince me or anyone else that you are correct, then you would just answer the questions. If you don't answer the questions then you really come across as having no evidence. If you can't answer the simple questions that I posted, then you have just demonstrated how weak your evidence is for evolution from common descent!!!

MadPanda, FCD Posts: 267 Joined: Nov. 2010 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2010,19:04    In that case, not only do we not have to take you seriously, you have no standing to complain about anything in science.  Your blithering idiocy remains underwhelming. Since you won't have the courage or intellectual honesty to actually do any homework, here's the big list of questions posted by DS as of October 22, 2010. Quote 1) Why do dolphins have five digits early in development if they do not have five digits as adults? 2) Why do dolphin embryos start out with the nostril on the front of the head if it is positioned on the top of the head in the adult? 3) Why do dolphin embryos have pharyngeal gill pouches if they lack gills as adults? 4) Why do dolphin embryos start to develop hind limbs if they do not have hind limbs as adults? 5) Why do horse embryos have five digits if they have only one as adults? 6) Why are there fossils intermediate between apes and humans? 7) How old is the earth? How do you know? 8) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla? (Hint: common design is not the answer). 9) Why is there a nested hierarchy of SINE insertions with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla, the exact same relationship revealed by the developmental and other genetic data? (Hint: common design is not the answer). 10) Why are human and chimp chromosomes nearly identical gene for gene and band for band, including the extra centromeric and telomeric sequences found in human chromosome two? (Hint: common design is not the answer). 11) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity for primates with humans most closely related to chimps? Why is this pattern consistent in both nuclear and mitochondrial genes and also consistent with the fossil evidence and the chromosome banding data? 12) Why is there a nested hierarchy of SINE insertions in primates, with humans most closely related to chimps? Why is this pattern consistent with all of the other fossil, morphological, developmental and genetic data sets? (Hint: common design is not the answer). 13) Why are there intermediates between terrestrial mammals and Cetaceans in the fossil record? Why are they in exactly the order predicted by descent with modification? Why are they precisely consistent with the developmental and genetic data? 14) Was there a world wide flood less than 10,000 years ago? How do you know? Why do no real geologists, paleontologists or archaeologists agree with you? 15) Why are there intermediates in the fossil record between horse ancestors with five digits and modern horses with only one? (Hint: you can’t get out of this one by redefining “digit” or “intermediate”). 16) Why is the human eye wired backwards? 17) Why must mutations for novel features be selectively advantageous from the time of their appearance? Why can’t they be selectively neutral or selected for other functions? 18) Exactly how many “kinds” of birds did god “create”? How do you know? 19) Why are there intermediates between birds and reptiles in the fossil record? 20) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity with birds nested deeply within reptiles? 21) Why do birds have scales? 22) Why does nothing that is not a bird have feathers? Get to work, you lying bigoted cowardly excuse for a miserable ignoramus. The MadPanda, FCD -------------- "No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

Pages: (25) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard