The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[El_Machinae]

If I understand what you're getting at: you think there are fewer species than are claimed, and so it was rather easy to fit them all on the ark. Any diversity we see now is from short-term breeding differences.

So ... you think that the polar bear and the black bear both descended from the same bear parents 6000 years ago (or whenever the flood was)?

 

[Samson]

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/

That is a concise definition.

So you are saying that the definition of a Kind is "those species that have evolved (?) from 1 species on the ark"? That is a pretty poor definition. How do you decide at this point in time what a kind is? If you cannot, how does the term have any use?

 

[ironduck]

No takers for my skeletons?

 

[El_Machinae]

A housecat and a dolphin

 

[ironduck]

You're supposed to pm me then I'll post later (as well as the guesses, but with names anonymous).

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

civ2: You seem to think that biology can't use fossil evidence. In essence, you want them to study the past without looking at the past. Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. Especially since scientists can tell a lot more from bones that you give them credit. Just because you don't understand anatomy doesn't mean that no one does.

 

[civ2]

Eran
The biggest arguement against fossils is that you basically NEVER find a whole skeleton (ok maybe a few were found - still a FEW).
And therefore you can't be sure which bone belongs where.
It's like using a Lego construction unit (or whatever it's called) to construct say a car.
But you can easily construct a boat from that very pieces.
with bones it's different but the IDEA remains - scientists LOOK at nowadays animals and "construct" the fossils accordingly OR (and that's what makes me 1000% more skeptical) they simply IMAGINE what this animal looked like.
It's nothing more than a sci-fi!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

They do more than imagine. You obviously don't think that scientists know more about anatomy and bones than you do; but they do. vertebrate skeletons all have certain similarities, so given a bone they can tell what species it is and what bone it is, usually. There have in the past been a few mistakes but these are rare and correctable. You just don't give them much credit at all.

 

[El_Machinae]

civ2: do you think dinosaurs existed?

How did the fossil layers get so deep?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

civ2: do you think dinosaurs existed?

How did the fossil layers get so deep?

I shouldn't answer for others, but as far as I can tell he refuses to acknowledge fossils in any way. I guess he doesn't think they exist.

 

[El_Machinae]

I can understand that he doesn't believe some of the reconstructions. Heck, *I* (knowing nothing about the topic at all) have trouble believing when they get a tooth and claim it's a new species (I think "couldn't it just be a warped tooth?").

But the dinosaur heads are pretty obvious, aren't they? And if there's a bone underneath another bone in some rock - isn't it intuitive that the deeper bone is older? And that the amount of rock separating them is a way of measuring the age?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Eran
The biggest arguement against fossils is that you basically NEVER find a whole skeleton (ok maybe a few were found - still a FEW).
And therefore you can't be sure which bone belongs where.
It's like using a Lego construction unit (or whatever it's called) to construct say a car.
But you can easily construct a boat from that very pieces.
with bones it's different but the IDEA remains - scientists LOOK at nowadays animals and "construct" the fossils accordingly OR (and that's what makes me 1000% more skeptical) they simply IMAGINE what this animal looked like.
It's nothing more than a sci-fi!

Translation:

• I don't understand fossil excavation
• I don't understand fossil analysis
• I don't understand fossils as a scientific area of study
• I wouldn't know how to do any of these things
• Ergo, scientists don't know how to do any of these things.

The analogy is rather flawed, since a fossilized (non-motorized) boat could include, for example, a keel and a rudder, whereas a fossilized car might include a steering wheel, a gas tank, a gearbox. Whereas legos are deliberately simplified for the specific purpose of being able to build anything with them, so the argument is highly specious. Animals in real life are not particularly modular.

(Note: Eran, read my new sigline.)

 

[The Last Conformist]

As far as biology goes, it would be quicker to list the things civ2 does understand.

Incidentally, ws diablodelmar permabanned or something? I would've thought he'd be back by now ...

Oh, and I've still not seen an argument against Ambulocetus beyond "it looks like a land animal".
Now, which tell-tale signs of a terrestrial habit does it have that this marine beastie lacks?

 

[ironduck]

Stop posting my quiz pics!

And I need more takers, I've only got two participants so far.

 

[civ2]

I can understand that he doesn't believe some of the reconstructions. Heck, *I* (knowing nothing about the topic at all) have trouble believing when they get a tooth and claim it's a new species (I think "couldn't it just be a warped tooth?").

But the dinosaur heads are pretty obvious, aren't they? And if there's a bone underneath another bone in some rock - isn't it intuitive that the deeper bone is older? And that the amount of rock separating them is a way of measuring the age?

The "heads" also contain more than 1 or 2 bones - many more.
Even so - the head isn't the entire animal.
And I didn't say (yet) anything against time-measuring (it's slightly another topic than evolution theories).
I mean that even if you get a head and a leg and a spine you still don't get an ANIMAL.
Unless you LOOK at NOWADAYS ones and "compare" the fossil to it.
But then how can you know which animal to compare to?
You can easily start comparing a cat to a turtle if the fossil is somewhat twisted and semi-broken.
And you can quite easily "discover" a whale's ancestor in that way.

TLC
Speaking of YOU - you also didn't show ANY knowledge on biology except "you don't know everything so shut up".
That's NO knowledge at all.
Now if you put a skeleton as a challenge - why don't YOU explain to me (the "ignorant" one) what is this and HOW do you know it?
Do it and I'll know YOU know something more than insulting.
And I mean it.
(Sorry ironduck. )

Erik
The above goes to you too.
Nothing more than "you don't know anything" from you yet.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

We don't need to be experts. We just need to be willing to rely on the research done by actual experts regarding bones. Whereas you, in trying to discount or refute all of this evidence, really do need to be an expert.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Now if you put a skeleton as a challenge - why don't YOU explain to me (the "ignorant" one) what is this and HOW do you know it?

Because it was classic_hero, not me, who claimed to be able to tell whether Ambulocetus was aquatic from a drawing of the skeleton.

 

[civ2]

Eran
Translation (of your words not mine):
I'm too lazy/ignorant/stubborn/dumb (select any) to check whether the scientists say at least 10% of truth.
But I will shout and call ignorant anyone who doesn't believe them.

I don't believe them blindly not because I'm better scientist then they but simply because I know what people can do to make money and get honor.
And this does not include falsifications only - false ideas are also false even when they're clothed in clever words like "theory".

Eran, what makes you think THEY are experts?
If you are not such - how can you be sure about them?

TLC
But you were the last to post it.

 

[ironduck]

Ok, I have three takers so far, there are more people posting in the thread though!

Här kommer Pippi Långstrump
Tjolahop tjolahej tjolahopsansa
Här kommer Pippi Långstrump
Ja här kommer faktisk jag!

 

[El_Machinae]

Again, does civ2 not think that dinosaurs existed?