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

[Eran of Arcadia]

[quote="Dr." Dino]"I still don't understand what I'm being charged for and who is charging me"[/quote]

That is not the only thing he seems to have trouble understanding, apparently. You're being charged for tax evasion, clearly. I guess he is going to use the argument from incredulity here - he doesn't understand the charges, so they must be wrong - as he does with evolution.

 

[ironduck]

Maybe someone should make him a DVD to explain it

 

[The Last Conformist]

On talk.origins, one of our regular loons (Nando, apparently a Muslim) is defending Hovind on the grounds that tax evasion is a victimless crime ...

 

[Babbler]

I wonder why he is defending him. After all, it suppose to have no bering on the matter.

 

[Fifty]

He's been in tax trouble in the past, and this has been his excuse:

From Wiki: He claimed that as a minister of God everything he owns belonged to God and he is not subject to paying taxes to the United States on the money he received for doing God's work.

 

[carlosMM]

civ2, I am waiting for answers.....
this goes for classical_hero as well. Please now finally bring a definition of kind. Inc ase you do not know what a definition is:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/definition
Main Entry: def·i·ni·tion
Pronunciation: "de-f&-'ni-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English diffinicioun, from Anglo-French, from Latin definition-, definitio, from definire
1 : an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma
2 a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol <dictionary definitions> c : a product of defining
3 : the action or process of defining
4 a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear <the definition of a telescope> <her comic genius is beyond definition> b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail <improve the definition of an image> (2) : clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits <a jacket with distinct waist definition>
- def&#183;i&#183;ni&#183;tion&#183;al /-'ni-sh&-n&l/ adjective

 

[classical_hero]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

That right there is soft tissue from from a 65 million year old fossil. But there are serious problems with that because we know that it cannot be 65 million years old because soft tissue will only last a few thousand year under ideal conditions.

@carlos, I have given you a definition, now if you don't like then, tough.

 

[El_Machinae]

Sweet Gravy! I don't care who's right and who's wrong in this instance; I hope that the scientists take very careful care of this sample and use excellent protocols to get information out of them.

I really hope they can get enough funding and expertise to examine this find, before exposure to our environment degrades the data contained within.

That looks really cool!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

All is not as it seems.

It is not quite "soft tissue"; what it is is capable of surviving 65 million years, but only under exceptional conditions. This doesn't quite destroy the idea that there have been no Tyrannosaurs in the last 65 million years. Still remarkable.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Ah, Schweitzer's stuff. And Eran's already posted the refutation.

Now, why does this remind me of the last time this came up in this thread?

 

[El_Machinae]

It's old information, then?

What's the status of the research on that find, then? Were there new things discovered that are cool to hear about?

 

[The Last Conformist]

It's old information, then?

It well past the stage of making headlines in non-technical papers, yes.

What's the status of the research on that find, then? Were there new things discovered that are cool to hear about?

I've not really followed that particular issue closely, but AFAIK some of the more sensational claims, such as finding recognizable blood cells, have been shown to be wrong.

carlosMM probably knows better than me.

 

[Sidhe]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

That right there is soft tissue from from a 65 million year old fossil. But there are serious problems with that because we know that it cannot be 65 million years old because soft tissue will only last a few thousand year under ideal conditions.

@carlos, I have given you a definition, now if you don't like then, tough.

Environmental conditions would carry a great deal of gravity, for example, bodies found in peat bogs have been revealed to be miraculously intact even though they were 10,000+ years old. You'd need to establish that the conditions of preservation weren't exceptionally suited to preservation, for example burying under perma frost, or in a glacier.

Let's not forget the mosquito or insects in amber either, they are fairly unmolested too.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

And there is still no definition for what exactly a "kind" is, at least not a useful one. Is it a species, a genus, what? If you insist you have given one, just humor me and give it again because I never saw it.

 

[Souron]

And there is still no definition for what exactly a "kind" is, at least not a useful one. Is it a species, a genus, what? If you insist you have given one, just humor me and give it again because I never saw it.

He gave the definition here: Post 540 of this thread.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The common ancestor of any group? I guess that works but it still doesn't correspond to actual science.

But given that the evidence actually leads to there being a single common ancestor, and they are saying that there are lots, can they actually give the boundaries of any particular "kind"?

 

[Souron]

The idea it is presenting apears to be that instead of change natural selection reasults in information loss. Trouble is there is abasolutly no evidence to suggest that animals in the past had any more genetic information then they do today. In fact the opposite is true.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Plus, they seem to be saying that if, say, a gene goes from GTCA to GTCC it is an information loss. Doesn't it logically follow that a mutation from GTCC to GTCA would be an information gain? I don't get this "information loss" bit at all.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The common ancestor of any group? I guess that works but it still doesn't correspond to actual science.

But given that the evidence actually leads to there being a single common ancestor, and they are saying that there are lots, can they actually give the boundaries of any particular "kind"?

The problem with that definition is that it's totally non-operational - there's no way to find out which animals belong to which kind.

Well, problem and problem - arguably it's a feature, since when creationists actually sit down and list out exactly what belongs to what kind, they tend to get their hands burned.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Plus, they seem to be saying that if, say, a gene goes from GTCA to GTCC it is an information loss. Doesn't it logically follow that a mutation from GTCC to GTCA would be an information gain? I don't get this "information loss" bit at all.

That's caused by an excessive exposture to common sense.