RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (21) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >   
  Topic: Challenge to Evolutionists< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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...

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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...

no I actually gave you a couple reasons, did you actually read my post?

Assertions only count as 'reasons' to fools like your pals Coadie and Scarlets...

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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...

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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.

  
slpage



Posts: 349
Joined: June 2004

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?

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.

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!

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?

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.

That's how Black people have Chinese babies.

:)

--------------
"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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

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

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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
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.


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.


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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


I don't suppose you want to support this with anything?  Especially the bolded part?

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.

That's how Black people have Chinese babies.

:)

and Caucasian people never have Chinese babies because...

two whites don't make a wong. :O



(ducks and runs for the exit)

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

Not to mention 2000 years of circumcised Jewish men. ;) Why do their sons still need the treatment?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 18 2007,23:23   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 18 2007,23:41)
Quote
Energy = Mass X constant (speed of light) squared.


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.


As I recall, E=mc^2 derives from the equations of relativity, so there is that connection.

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!

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

   
akg41470



Posts: 1
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

Ted Haggard. I win.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,00:07   

no i win

I'm in ur stalz

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,01:47   

Sorry, I win.
link

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
snorkild



Posts: 32
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,05:16   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,19:23)
Dutch astronomer named Olaf Roemer

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?

--------------
wimp

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,05:29   

Quote (snorkild @ Sep. 19 2007,05:16)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,19:23)
Dutch astronomer named Olaf Roemer

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?

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.

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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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".


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

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

  
fusilier



Posts: 252
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: 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

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,07:14   

This thread is like a time capsule taking me back to 1986...

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
ck1



Posts: 65
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2007,07:51   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:09)
supersport:        
Quote
bodies and minds get passed down, not genes.

So DNA testing to establish paternity is bogus?

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

"falling out of favor" is not science....it's opinion and guesswork.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

Troll.

Answer some of your own outstanding questions before posing more.
Quote
the scumbags in evolutionary science


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.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

"falling out of favor" is not science....it's opinion and guesswork.

you've proven you know nothing about science, cubicle boy.

About those toxic-waste eating bacteria that still ain't dead...

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

  
  603 replies since Sep. 17 2007,22:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (21) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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