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... > forastero's thread

Pages: (51) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,19:58    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,19:53) Quote (rossum @ Nov. 03 2011,19:31)   Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,18:12) Oh yes Buddhist do have so called Messianic prophesies  http://www.maitreya.org/english....ism.htm You are just showing your ignorance of Buddhism.  The Maitreya is a Buddha, not a Messiah.  A Messiah is a concept from Judaism, not Buddhism.  Please don't get you religions mixed up.  It merely shows up even further your basic lack of knowledge about the stuff you are copying from the Internet.     Quote Adi Da was suggested by his devotees to be Maitreya And his devotees were wrong.  The Maitreya Buddha has not come yet.     Quote The Buddha gave him this prophecy: The Buddha is a Buddha, not a prophet.  Again, you are misunderstanding Buddhism.  If you apply concepts from Judaism directly to Buddhism, you will usually be making an error.     Quote Timothy McVeigh was just one agnostic who confessed: "science is my religion". Irrelevant.  I said that he was an American, which is correct.  I said nothing about his religious beliefs, or lack thereof.  My point obviously missed you completely.  My apologies for my mis-estimate of your level of comprehension.     Quote Buddhism is violent in essence and influences many. Go through the Bible and count up the number of people God kills, or orders to be killed.  Go through the Tripitaka and count up the number of people the Buddha kills, or orders to be killed.  Compare the two numbers, and get back to us on which of the two religions "is violent in essence".  We can agree that Buddhism influences many.     Quote Oh and another reason tantric rituals are kept secret is because often involve casting spells And you know this how?  If they are secret, then you don't know what happens in them.  If you know what happens in them, then they aren't secret.  Or perhaps you believe that everything you read on the Internet is true?  That would explain a few things. rossum Wow! You you cut off your own scriptures to save your face. Bottom line is that Buddhism references Messianic prophecy. The phenotypic plasticity of epigentiic immunity (also referred to as the biological arms race) is another way of explaining the Hebrew war against the Canaanites.. This magnificently designed system sends out macrophages (myocytes, monocytes etc..) to encapsulate and destroy cells infected by antigens, viruses, bacteria etc.. Canaanites such as the Amalakites and the Mycenaean Greeks were given over to very depraved lifestyles such as fornication,necrophilia, bestiality, coprophillia, rape, homosexuality, lesbianism, incest,, pedophilia, and human sacrifices. Thus it is more than likely that all the beast and children were slaughtered to prevent the spread of not only deadly behavior, but STDs. Lev 18:03-26.The Hebrews and other peoples of the Exodus were the immune system of God's creation and emerged from that immune cell known as the Ark, which inhabited that cleansing Flood--that great apoptosis which removed the malignant killers of the trees and megafauna Was there a Canaanite explosion? WTF? What's that about the pre-Cambrian tango again? (I do know that it lasted 7/8 of the Dancing With the Starstuff competition.) Lenny! Where the eff are you? (S/he mentioned Buddhism, after all.) -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

David Holland Posts: 17 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,19:59    Forastero, I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. I think, from some of what you have said, that you are referring to a single fossil bed. Could you explain what Cambrian means when you use the term? By the way Darwin died long before the Vendian fossils were discovered. Not sure how he could have written about them.

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,20:17    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,19:40) He cuts and pastes real gud. Interestingly, he didn't take out the footnote numbers. You do realize that copying someone else's work without attribution is immoral and potentially illegal depending on the age of the quote? BTW: you copied it from here: http://www.harunyahya.com/disaste....s03.php Now why can't you just make a simple link to things you cut and paste. We're asking for your own words here so that we can be sure you understand the concepts.  sigh.. Just out of curiosity, did you read the quote you posted? I found this interesting Quote In polyphenic development, hormones control a switch between alternative developmental pathways so that individuals with identical genotypes can develop dramatically different phenotypes. Did you miss the word that I bolded?  Again, you are simply describing known functions.  Crocodile sex is determined by the temperature at which the eggs incubate.  So what? That DOES NOT mean that if I keep a crocodile cooler, then it will switch to a female.  It doesn't mean that if I inject estrogen into a male human, that I will get a female human. I think we may have a difference of opinion about what PHENOTYPE means. That's why I keep asking you to define the words that you use.  It's not my fault that you don't understand these concepts. BTW: Copying and pasting (as shown above) does not mean you understand a concept.   Your specific claim is "The endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype."  This is not development, this is not metamorphasis.  This is a very specific claim.  Do you continue to maintain that this claim is correct? If so, then please provide evidence where an organisms endocrine system caused a phenotypic change.  If not, then we can stop worrying about. BTW: Still haven't answered your questions, even after I answered yours.  This seems to indicate an aversion to legitimate discussion and the back and forth of ideas. Oh, BTW: I already provided you with a series of papers regarding the evolutionary history of the ursids.  If you read those articles I presented you will see one article on the biochemical changes among species, although I'm sure OM would enjoy schooling you on the subject. Still waiting... If I right in my own words you ask for outside evidence. If I copy and paste outside evidence you claim that its not what I think it is.  No wonder you constantly project goal pole shifting and cut off your own science to save your face. Btw, I copied and pasted Darwin's racism stuff from a whole bunch of sites. Oh and while you are suing me for plagiarism, I'll counter with your slander but I win because copy rights dont apply when it comes to non-profit, educational teaching. Your welcome Btw 2, every "good" scientist knows that development  a lifelong process of acquiring and learning and also includes parental effects of the previous generations. Anyway what is your point? The article is clearly about natal and post natal endocrine influenced polyphenisms. Btw 3, practice what you preach and put in your own words your so called mutated Ursidae

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,21:12    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,19:24) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2011,18:32) Color me curious... how would "digging out" Fedonkin's book help you with the fact that you claimed Charles Darwin wrote something that he did not write? Its a extremely cited book and contains the original source of course There is no "original source" of a Darwin quote as you asserted. Darwin's collected writings are available online and searchable, and he never said what you claimed he said. Let me restore what you cut, just so we are clear about what you falsely claimed: Quote Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" . -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,21:24    1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying. Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution. I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it. Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine. 2) So it's OK to steal someone else's words if it's from multiple sites?  Got it thanks. Slander (to quote the Spaniard "I don't think it means what you think it means") a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report.  I have not slandered you.  You are using someone else's words without attribution. As I said (I guess you don't read gud either) that it is unethical or immoral (I forget which I used) and potentially illegal.  It's unethical because you are posting someone else's words as if they were your own.  You are not giving someone else credit for the work they have done. You really think copyright doesn't apply in those cases sometimes?!?!?  Why are all creationists rules lawyers... oh yeah, the are used to finding justifications for ignoring the rules of their holy book. 3) The article is about metmorphosis.  Insects have a 'natal'  really?   I'll remind you AGAIN.  You claimed "The endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype".  I want an example.  You are posting articles on metamorphosis.  Plus, the traits in this article all polyphenic.  You won't get an an argument that the expression of these traits can change by the environment. We see it all the time.  But that is NOT what you claimed.  You said that "endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype".  I want an example. And I want to know that you understand what you said and why what you said is wrong.  You keep pointing out things that have nothing to do with what your claim was.  If you abandon that claim, fine.  Then say so.  We still agree on all the other stuff. Learning???!?!?!  So, are you claiming that the endocrine system can change what I've learned too?  If you aren't, then I can't imagine why you brought it up.   Parental effects?  Like what?  MY mom came to visit this week, does this mean I'll suddenly have a widow's peak when I didn't before?   3)  What mutated ursids?  I stated that you were confused about the concepts you were talking about.  This is true.  Your initial claim was to have a species mutate into a different ORDER.  I explained to you why this is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. If you didn't understand it, then I suggest you ask for clarification... just like I have been asking you for clarification for almost a month and not getting anything.  Unlike you, I will answer requests for clarification. BTW: Those were all my own words.  You can put that into any search engine you like and (except for the cites) will not find that text anywhere else on the internet.  Your claims are therefore refuted. Do you understand the difference between requiring an artidactyl to mutate into a carnivore and the evolutionary history of an order? Do you want the entire mutational difference between that last common ancestor of polar bears and pandas and every mutation that led to the modern forms?  Well, I can't do it.  No one can.  No one will ever be able to.  It's an impossible request. That doesn't change the simple fact that both pandas and polar bears are ursids, carnivores, vertebrates, and animals.  That doesn't change the fact that the DNA in pandas is more similar to polar bears than it is to cats, dogs or other carnivores.  That bear DNA is more similar to other carnivores than it is to artidactyls or cetaceans.  That bear DNA is more similar to other vertebrates than it is to fruit flies or beetles. Can your notions do better?  Fine, use ID or creationism principles and determine the correct nested hierarchy of carnivores.  Explain what your results are and how you go them.  Then we'll apply the results to an unknown and see what we get. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,22:05    I've been thinking about this and here's analogy that may be useful. My claim (in regards to the ursid thing) is that the the original Chrysler K-platform developed, over time with small changes, into the Dodge Aries, the Plymouth Reliant, the Chrysler Lebaron.  Further modification resulted in the Chrysler Lebaron convertible and the turbo-charged LeBaron.  Further modification on another line led from the Aries to the Dodge 400 and 600.  A derivative of the original platform resulted in the original Chrysler minivans.  This is very much how evolution played out over time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_K_platform) Interestingly, the Lebaron, Lebaron convertible, Aries, and 400s were often sold in the same dealerships at the same time. forastero is asking that, through successive modifications, we turn a Lebaron into a CH-53 Sea Stallion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-53_Sea_Stallion). Does that help you understand the difference in what you are asking for and why your original requirement makes no sense? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,22:52    ----------- Even if the activity of the endocrine system affects development at that point, so what? If the endocrine system itself evolved, then any phenotypic traits affected by it would have evolved via the DNA that guided the endocrine system itself. Therefore that argument isn't against the basic principles, it's merely against one particular detail. ----------- As for the estimated number of atoms in the known universe (representing the 118 known elements, or some subset thereof) - what's that got to do with anything? So what if the odds of getting one particular combination of enzymes is low? The presence of life (or of a particular species) doesn't depend on getting exactly that combination; it depends on getting a combination that works. And a lot of that working depends on the enzymes reacting with each other, doesn't it? So if the organism depends on enzyme A reacting with enzyme B, all it really depends on is having an A and a B that react with each other. ----------- In evolutionary terms "fitness" refers to reproductive success. That doesn't make those with "fitness" more right than the others, it merely notes that they were more successful at producing descendants. Describing the results of this, and making predictions of which groups will be more successful in the future, at the expense of the less successful, does not imply approval or endorsement of that result. Expecting a result and approving of it are not the same thing. ----------- Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49) Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" . In contrast to what? What would constitute an incomplete state? ----------- Re "given enough time" When the number of differences in the DNA of two species is X, and the average rate of persistent DNA change for each is R, then a first approximation of "enough time" since their common ancestor would be somewhere in the neighborhood of (1/2)X/R. (The (1/2) is because both of them have been evolving since that divergence. I almost forgot that detail.) ----------- Henry

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,22:53    Quote When did Darwin die? Obvious punchline to that: Were You There? ----------- Quote describe the Cambrian explosion KA-BOOM! Next question? ----------- Quote I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. Good question! Next question? Henry

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,23:02    which one of you guys is fourasstero again? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2011,23:37    The drawback to using the word "carnivore" as both a description of eating habits and the name of a specific taxon is that even people who don't mean to can confuse the two meanings.

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,00:27    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2011,21:12) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,19:24)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2011,18:32) Color me curious... how would "digging out" Fedonkin's book help you with the fact that you claimed Charles Darwin wrote something that he did not write? Its a extremely cited book and contains the original source of course There is no "original source" of a Darwin quote as you asserted. Darwin's collected writings are available online and searchable, and he never said what you claimed he said. Let me restore what you cut, just so we are clear about what you falsely claimed: Quote Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" . Yes, I too am curious about this.  You seem to miss the point, forastero (not surprisingly).  You have claimed the above is verbatim what Darwin said.  It has been pointed out to you that this is untrue and the reasoning given.  You have failed to make a counter argument.  Why is this. To be clear, Darwin died before any of the terms you claim he used where extent.  Why do yo claim this?  Related point:  why then should anyone take anything you say seriously? -------------- 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,00:47    crackle... ahem IS THIS THING ON oh shit thats loud.  ok hold my cigarette alright.  please .  goddamit.  ok here <reads from crumpled paper, thin spidery handwriting> "Forasstero, why should we care about your opinion of darwin, or bacterial endocrine systems, or the giant Pre-Cambrian of 5397 BC, or whether Hitler was just gay evilutionism or also devil Buddha tantric gay evilutionism with extra hate jesus in a leather crotchless lab coat? " <drinks sip of water, begins again> "What makes your opinion, about how many demons Buddha could give the rusty trombone while neither the flag nor the wind blows, any more interesting or valid than say the opinion of the guy who fucks my hairdresser's boyfriend?" <yawns, looks at watch> "Seriously, more rock to Bach via a divinely trimmed cock, please.  No one is interested in your opinions fabrications misrepresentations, spoonerist malapropping portmanteau and flagellating liar for jesus routine, instead ,dance for us you little muppet" <spits in corner, kicks piano player, throws a fifty cent piece at fourasstero, turns on heel and exits in visceral disgust> -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,01:35    Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59) Forastero, I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. I think, from some of what you have said, that you are referring to a single fossil bed. Could you explain what Cambrian means when you use the term? We cant even get relatively recent Egyptian or Mesoamerican chronologies right but the high priests of academia somehow miraculously explain everything under the sun during some so called millions of years of volcanic, tectonic, glacial, and flood activity? Btw, millions of years that it would take for all of their so mutations to actually create new critters. The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event. On the other hand, circular reasoning has scientists dating fossils by their geologic layers and dating layers by their index fossils but they should be labeling these layers as eco zones. Ecosystems from the arctic to the tropics all have community organization where mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, aquatic organisms etc. partition themselves in accord to the resources that they can best adapt to. So its logical that mammals and dinosaurs probably inhabited different niches too.  Likewise, the fossil record preserves paleoecosystems that indicate this same community organization and resource partitioning. For example, the Burgess shale of the Canadian Rockies consists of marine life but go a few miles north or are south in these same mountains and you will find dinosaur or mammal fossils. On the other hand, major fossil mammal sites are often in the same vicinity as major dinosaur sites in parts of Canada, Montana, Wyoming, China, Argentina etc.. Scientists often claim geologic shuffling via tectonic activity, flood etc..

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,01:47    Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59) By the way Darwin died long before the Vendian fossils were discovered. Not sure how he could have written about them. I am not surprised that he would write it though because he wrote in his origins a great deal on the “sudden appearances” in the Cambrian and the so called “primordial” layer beneath the Cambrian. I am thinking the word Vendian was emphasized in brackets but I will soon find out precisely where this quote is originally coming from.   The  rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century by a creationist,[6] Buckland, W. (1841). Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology "the sudden manner in which several groups of species first appear in our European formations, the entire absence , as at present known, of formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata, are all undoubtedly of the most serious nature.” P 349 Origin 6th edition and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7] Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray. pp. 315–316 Darwin wrote, "the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great," yet he expressed hope that such fossils would be found, noting that "only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy." On the sudden Appearance of Groups of allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata. In The Origin Darwin writes: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which many species in several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are descended from a single progenitor, apply with nearly equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it cannot be doubted that all the Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. Some of the most ancient Silurian animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree intermediate in character. Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures…” http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,02:05    Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2011,22:52) ----------- Even if the activity of the endocrine system affects development at that point, so what? If the endocrine system itself evolved, then any phenotypic traits affected by it would have evolved via the DNA that guided the endocrine system itself. Therefore that argument isn't against the basic principles, it's merely against one particular detail. ----------- As for the estimated number of atoms in the known universe (representing the 118 known elements, or some subset thereof) - what's that got to do with anything? So what if the odds of getting one particular combination of enzymes is low? The presence of life (or of a particular species) doesn't depend on getting exactly that combination; it depends on getting a combination that works. And a lot of that working depends on the enzymes reacting with each other, doesn't it? So if the organism depends on enzyme A reacting with enzyme B, all it really depends on is having an A and a B that react with each other. ----------- In evolutionary terms "fitness" refers to reproductive success. That doesn't make those with "fitness" more right than the others, it merely notes that they were more successful at producing descendants. Describing the results of this, and making predictions of which groups will be more successful in the future, at the expense of the less successful, does not imply approval or endorsement of that result. Expecting a result and approving of it are not the same thing. ----------- Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49) Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" . In contrast to what? What would constitute an incomplete state? ----------- Re "given enough time" When the number of differences in the DNA of two species is X, and the average rate of persistent DNA change for each is R, then a first approximation of "enough time" since their common ancestor would be somewhere in the neighborhood of (1/2)X/R. (The (1/2) is because both of them have been evolving since that divergence. I almost forgot that detail.) ----------- Henry concerning biological mechanisms, the evidence that these mechanism need to be complete on arrival is tremendously better than his assertion that biological mechanisms sprang from random nothingness. But I will let Professor Behe deal with that one. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007...._t.html

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,02:11    The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event. Oops, in this quote from a few posts above, I meant to say  one era and not one event

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,02:51    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24) 1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying. Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution. I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it. Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine. 2) So it's OK to steal someone else's words if it's from multiple sites?  Got it thanks. Slander (to quote the Spaniard "I don't think it means what you think it means") a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report.  I have not slandered you.  You are using someone else's words without attribution. As I said (I guess you don't read gud either) that it is unethical or immoral (I forget which I used) and potentially illegal.  It's unethical because you are posting someone else's words as if they were your own.  You are not giving someone else credit for the work they have done. You really think copyright doesn't apply in those cases sometimes?!?!?  Why are all creationists rules lawyers... oh yeah, the are used to finding justifications for ignoring the rules of their holy book. 3) The article is about metmorphosis.  Insects have a 'natal'  really?   I'll remind you AGAIN.  You claimed "The endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype".  I want an example.  You are posting articles on metamorphosis.  Plus, the traits in this article all polyphenic.  You won't get an an argument that the expression of these traits can change by the environment. We see it all the time.  But that is NOT what you claimed.  You said that "endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype".  I want an example. And I want to know that you understand what you said and why what you said is wrong.  You keep pointing out things that have nothing to do with what your claim was.  If you abandon that claim, fine.  Then say so.  We still agree on all the other stuff. Learning???!?!?!  So, are you claiming that the endocrine system can change what I've learned too?  If you aren't, then I can't imagine why you brought it up.   Parental effects?  Like what?  MY mom came to visit this week, does this mean I'll suddenly have a widow's peak when I didn't before?   3)  What mutated ursids?  I stated that you were confused about the concepts you were talking about.  This is true.  Your initial claim was to have a species mutate into a different ORDER.  I explained to you why this is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. If you didn't understand it, then I suggest you ask for clarification... just like I have been asking you for clarification for almost a month and not getting anything.  Unlike you, I will answer requests for clarification. BTW: Those were all my own words.  You can put that into any search engine you like and (except for the cites) will not find that text anywhere else on the internet.  Your claims are therefore refuted. Do you understand the difference between requiring an artidactyl to mutate into a carnivore and the evolutionary history of an order? Do you want the entire mutational difference between that last common ancestor of polar bears and pandas and every mutation that led to the modern forms?  Well, I can't do it.  No one can.  No one will ever be able to.  It's an impossible request. That doesn't change the simple fact that both pandas and polar bears are ursids, carnivores, vertebrates, and animals.  That doesn't change the fact that the DNA in pandas is more similar to polar bears than it is to cats, dogs or other carnivores.  That bear DNA is more similar to other carnivores than it is to artidactyls or cetaceans.  That bear DNA is more similar to other vertebrates than it is to fruit flies or beetles. Can your notions do better?  Fine, use ID or creationism principles and determine the correct nested hierarchy of carnivores.  Explain what your results are and how you go them.  Then we'll apply the results to an unknown and see what we get. Um again, I copied and pasted just a few times but you still seem to be basing your arguments on your own dramatization and obviously only reading the smug ad homenims, which reduces to narcissist cronyism . So here is one more appropriate cut and paste Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, a perceived threat to a narcissist’s self-esteem or self-worth. It is believed that narcissists have two layers of rage. The first layer of rage can be thought of as a constant anger (towards someone else), and the second layer being a self-aimed wrath. Primitive ego-defenses include, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. Also, devaluation and projective identification are seen as borderline defenses. Projection is attributing your own repressed thoughts to someone else. The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists .

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,03:01    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24) 1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying. Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution. I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it. Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine. Case in point. Instead of all the double standard drama, please tell us in your so called layman's terms the mechanics behind primordial soup to grizzly bears to Panda and Polar bear

Amadan Posts: 1337 Joined: Jan. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,04:10    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2011,05:02) which one of you guys is fourasstero again? (Stands up) I am Tardacus! -------------- "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.

Schroedinger's Dog Posts: 1692 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,04:31    Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 04 2011,10:10)   Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2011,05:02) which one of you guys is fourasstero again? (Stands up) I am Tardacus! No! I am Tardacus! -------------- "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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,07:01    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,03:01) Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24) 1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying. Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution. I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it. Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine. Case in point. Instead of all the double standard drama, please tell us in your so called layman's terms the mechanics behind primordial soup to grizzly bears to Panda and Polar bear If you can't be bothered to read what I write, then I guess there's not much point.  (Much like the earlier question. I've already answered you.  If you don't like the answer or don't understand it, that is not my problem.) BTW: You do know that Behe accepts common descent right? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

rossum Posts: 289 Joined: Dec. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,07:07    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,19:53) Wow! You you cut off your own scriptures to save your face. You ignorance of the nature of the Tripitaka and its contents is manifest.  No Buddhist in the world accepts all of Buddhist scripture.  The Tripitaka is a collection.  Imagine that Christian scripture, in addition to the the Bible also contained the works of Arius, Nestorius, John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin and Joseph Smith.  Nobody accepts all of that.  Buddhists use the parts of the Tripitaka that they personally find useful, and ignore the other parts.  Again, I will remind you that it is unwise to assume that Buddhism approaches things in the same way as Christianity. Quote Bottom line is that Buddhism references Messianic prophecy. The Messiah is a Jewish concept, not a Buddhist one.  The Maitreya Buddha is not a Messiah.  Prophecies of the Maitreya have no connection to Jewish prophecies of the Messiah. Quote The phenotypic plasticity of epigentiic immunity (also referred to as the biological arms race) is another way of explaining the Hebrew war against the Canaanites.. This magnificently designed system sends out macrophages (myocytes, monocytes etc..) to encapsulate and destroy cells infected by antigens, viruses, bacteria etc.. Canaanites such as the Amalakites and the Mycenaean Greeks were given over to very depraved lifestyles such as fornication,necrophilia, bestiality, coprophillia, rape, homosexuality, lesbianism, incest,, pedophilia, and human sacrifices. Thus it is more than likely that all the beast and children were slaughtered to prevent the spread of not only deadly behavior, but STDs. Lev 18:03-26.The Hebrews and other peoples of the Exodus were the immune system of God's creation and emerged from that immune cell known as the Ark, which inhabited that cleansing Flood--that great apoptosis which removed the malignant killers of the trees and megafauna Is it just me, or is this meaningless word-salad?  forastero makes more sense when he is copying from Wikipedia. rossum -------------- The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,07:10    Here's another question for your list of ones you won't answer. Why do you require impossible evidence for science (i.e. evidence that no actual science requires and all scientists acknowledge that doesn't exist) and not require the same level of evidence for your own position. You haven't even told us your position, though it sounds vaguely YEC.  Would you be willing to argue with someone who is a ID supporter but says that the designer is not God and the Bible has nothing to do with design? Would you be willing to subject your notions to the level of scrutiny that you are giving to science? If 'no' to any of the above, why? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,09:24    his position?  for fuck's sake that is obvious -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,10:06    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:35) Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59) Forastero, I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. I think, from some of what you have said, that you are referring to a single fossil bed. Could you explain what Cambrian means when you use the term? We cant even get relatively recent Egyptian or Mesoamerican chronologies right but the high priests of academia somehow miraculously explain everything under the sun during some so called millions of years of volcanic, tectonic, glacial, and flood activity? Btw, millions of years that it would take for all of their so mutations to actually create new critters. The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event. On the other hand, circular reasoning has scientists dating fossils by their geologic layers and dating layers by their index fossils but they should be labeling these layers as eco zones. Ecosystems from the arctic to the tropics all have community organization where mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, aquatic organisms etc. partition themselves in accord to the resources that they can best adapt to. So its logical that mammals and dinosaurs probably inhabited different niches too.  Likewise, the fossil record preserves paleoecosystems that indicate this same community organization and resource partitioning. For example, the Burgess shale of the Canadian Rockies consists of marine life but go a few miles north or are south in these same mountains and you will find dinosaur or mammal fossils. On the other hand, major fossil mammal sites are often in the same vicinity as major dinosaur sites in parts of Canada, Montana, Wyoming, China, Argentina etc.. Scientists often claim geologic shuffling via tectonic activity, flood etc.. I'm sorry, did you answer the question?  I'll make it simpler for you: multiple choice. Q. Do you believe the Cambrian is a period of time? a) yes b) no I realize that you don't actually want to be pinned down on anything because you have no idea what you're talking about.  But answering questions that have simple answers with rambling monologues does you no favors (I know, you think it does.  You're wrong.). So, how about it?  Yes?  Or no? -------------- 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

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,10:10    Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 04 2011,04:31) Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 04 2011,10:10)   Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2011,05:02) which one of you guys is fourasstero again? (Stands up) I am Tardacus! No! I am Tardacus! No!  I am...oh, shit, no; he's Tardacus! -------------- 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

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,10:30    Quote But answering questions that have simple answers with rambling monologues does you no favors You noticed that, too?

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,10:44    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:01) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,03:01) Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24) 1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying. Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution. I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it. Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine. Case in point. Instead of all the double standard drama, please tell us in your so called layman's terms the mechanics behind primordial soup to grizzly bears to Panda and Polar bear If you can't be bothered to read what I write, then I guess there's not much point.  (Much like the earlier question. I've already answered you.  If you don't like the answer or don't understand it, that is not my problem.) BTW: You do know that Behe accepts common descent right? What pages did you discuss any mutation or natural selection mechanism? Where did you discuss in your own words any bear and cat evolution? It seems to me that you only offered a few links. You incorrectly touched upon domestic selextion, epigenetics, phenotypic plasticity,  the Big Bang, and so called uniformitarianism.  You also admitted to only just now "learning" about about epigenetic plasticity but any real or sane biologist would know that epigenetic plasticity is common knowledge I have provided this thread both a good example and a good definition of the Endocrine system's selection of polyphenisms but you simply kicked against the goad

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,11:09    If the endocrine system itself evolved, then any traits affected by it would have evolved via the DNA that guided the endocrine system itself. Therefore that argument isn't against the basic principles of evolution, it's merely against one particular detail.

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2011,11:17    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:10) Here's another question for your list of ones you won't answer. Why do you require impossible evidence for science (i.e. evidence that no actual science requires and all scientists acknowledge that doesn't exist) and not require the same level of evidence for your own position. You haven't even told us your position, though it sounds vaguely YEC.  Would you be willing to argue with someone who is a ID supporter but says that the designer is not God and the Bible has nothing to do with design? Would you be willing to subject your notions to the level of scrutiny that you are giving to science? If 'no' to any of the above, why? So you admit no scientist can't even explain the notorious   prokaryote to eukaryote and ape to man dichotomies? I debate theistic evolutionists, Buddhist, alien seed mongers, creationists, and IDers and learn from them too.  Some are much more right than others and it often comes down to the individual. Things like DNA and soft tissue in fossils, thermodynamics etc indicate a young earth to me. I believe the Bible. I believe life was created but adapts slightly by epigentics and not random mutations.

Pages: (51) < ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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