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

[warpus]

1st law applies here though..."matter cannot be created or destroyed"

What exactly are you trying to disprove, the theory of evolution, or the big bang theory?

You can't do both at the same time you know - pick one and stick with it.

 

[Perfection]

1st law applies here though..."matter cannot be created or destroyed"

Actually the first law is energy cannot be created nor destroyed (though quantum mechanics says this law can be violated for short periods of time). A nuclear reactor destroys matter. And I fail to see how evolution (or most incarnations of big bang thoery) violates this.

But it has never been observed.

Sure it has!
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

 

[sanabas]

Oh that is what is called "microevolution" which actually does happen, but it is the only one that has been observed and it does not (or, at least, in what has been proved/observed) add information, only gets rid of information. Macroevolution (the change from one kind to another) is merely a theory and has no evidence at all.

so you're defining macroevolution as the change from one kind to another? Fair enough. I only have two questions about that definition. First, please define 'kind' for us. Second, over how many generations is the change allowed to happen to qualify as macroevolution? Is it that you are a different kind than your parents, or that you are a different kind from your great^10grandparents, or is it that you're a different kind than your ancestors of 100 generations ago?

I would still really like to know what you mean by 'information', so we can show you it can be added.

I think by 'kind', you mean all dogs are one kind (are wolves the same kind as dogs, btw?), all bears are one kind, etc. And that there was an original protopuppy & prototeddy on the ark, that contained the genetic code for all the different bears on earth today, including grizzlies, polar bears, koalas & all the rest. Is that correct? What I'd like to know is how you work out which kind something is. What do you group wombats, hippos & rhinos with? What about birds? All birds from one kind, or did we start with a few different birds?

*coughs* *coughs again*

That is what I call admitting defeat. I agree that microevolution does happen, you know. Where the arguement starts is precisely in stellar, macro and all the other evolutions are, so I don't know what I'm doing here.

All what other evolutions? Microevolution is the only one you need, and the only one happening. Macroevolution in the sense I think you're talking about doesn't happen. If you can find an example of it happening, then you have just disproved evolution. I have no idea what stellar evolution is, or how it relates to living things on earth.

One last question: Can we please have the name of the DVD you've been using as a source for some of this stuff? I'd like to know what it is, and watch it if possible, but you haven't actually given us the name yet.

 

[Che Guava]

sanabas: nice post. Most people tend to think of macroevolution as speciation (the creation of new species), so I'm assuming that's the 'kinds' that diablo was referring to. To begin with, the term species is an artificial construct, and only really applies to the more 'advanced' kingdoms. Trying to define bacteria, archea, or even some fungi in terms of species is ridiculous, given the multitude of ways that they swap DNA.

If you exclude that, the line between macro and microevolution is stil blurry at best. If two populations of a single type of animal (or plant, etc...) are separated and follow different microevolutionary paths, there will come a time when an individual from one group cannot create viable offspring with a member of the other group: now they are techincally different species. Will this work for all combination of individuals from opposing groups? Probably not, so there is a chance that the population could merge again. Has speciation occured? It's hard to say...

 

[Erik Mesoy]

This thread deals with creationism as opposed to biological evolution, not stellar evolution.

Perfection originally said: "When I refer to creationism I'm refering to god creating life directly..."

Hence, the Big Bang has nothing to do with the evolution being discussed in this thread.

*coughs* *coughs again*

That is what I call admitting defeat. I agree that microevolution does happen, you know. Where the arguement starts is precisely in stellar, macro and all the other evolutions are, so I don't know what I'm doing here.

I swear, you must have a filter on your computer that reparses my posts, because what you just posted above is an insult to my intelligence.

Me: "This thread is not about stellar evolution."
You: "So you admit defeat."

No. Plain and simple, no. If you want to discuss stellar evolution and astronomy, start a thread on it. Right now I'm telling you not to bring up more irrelevant issues like you have been doing for the past month. If I demanded that you explain to me the hierarchical structure of your local church here, you'd probably say that it had little to no relevance to the discussion, but that wouldn't be an admission that your church was wrong, now would it?


In your last five posts on this thread, you have said: (in reverse order)

• Microevolution has never been observed to result in a gain in information (I'm still waiting on a definition of "information", you furging little splot, and until you give me that your argument is valueless)
• The 1st law of thermodynamic applies to the Earth (And the point is?)
• That I'm admitting defeat when I ask you to not bring up astrological topics in a thread about biological evolution (See above)
• Microevolution happens but macroevolution has no evidence for it (seen this before? and what's the line between the two? We say there is none)
• We couldn't have evolved because things tend towards disorder (Snowflakes assemble from water and the Earth is not a closed system. Besides, don't world wars and other chaos prove that we as a species have created a more disorderly world?)

That's a undefined claim, a pointless statement, an ad hominem, a claim whose refutation you have failed to address, and a flat-out inaccurate statement. None two of them are arguing the same topic. PICK A TOPIC AND DISCUSS IT.

In concluding, I'd like to borrow a little something from VRWCAgent...
A clue-by-four. You seem to need some application of it.

Moderator Action: Flaming - warned.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Markus6]

Having watched Kent Hovind's DVD I'd just like to help everyone out a bit. He says that the word evolution has 6 meanings. Microevolution is the only one he believes in - changes within 'kinds'. Then there is macroevolution, stellar evolution, cosmic evolution and a couple of others I can't remember. Basically he says evolution is a theory of how EVERYTHING got here. It's quite ironic because he blames atheists for lumping them all together and trying to sell them to him as a package when I've never heard a scientist refer to all 6 as one thing.

Secondly, am I mistaken or did Einstein disprove matter can't be created or destroyed with e=mc^2?

Thirdly, you said you were watching the DVD to answer my question diablo. Did you get anywhere?

 

[Che Guava]

Having watched Kent Hovind's DVD I'd just like to help everyone out a bit...

Wow, this Mr Hovind has a lot of theories...just a few from wiki:

....Hovind considers the King James Version of the Bible the inerrant word of God and must be taken literally to its word in context. Because of this, he believes all findings of science will eventually be found to agree with Scripture — which he claims is a priori known to be truth....

.....In 2005 Hovind claimed, "Spanish conquistadors" in 1571 found drawings of dinosaurs on stones, and "on them you will see people doing brain and heart surgery as well as every known dinosaur clearly depicted. Several hundred of them show humans and dinosaurs together....

...Hovind ignores fossil evidence in that "no fossils can count as evidence for evolution" because "all we know about that animal is that it died," we do not know that it "had any kids"...

...Hovind believes and teaches that the US government is suppresing a cure for cancer and there are serious health risks associated with immunizations...

....Hovind believes "UFOs are apparitions of Satan" and that the US government possesses UFOs of alien origin...

I'm sure the article is a little biased, but wow....

 

[Markus6]

I'm sure the article is a little biased, but wow....

It's not that biased. Having watched the DVD I can tell you he also thinks there were fire breathing dinosaurs and that the Egyptians had electricity. If anyone has the time and the stomach for it they can watch the first four at http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php

 

[diablodelmar]

Wow, this Mr Hovind has a lot of theories...just a few from wiki:



I'm sure the article is a little biased, but wow....

its very biased Markus!

 

[Bluemofia]

No. Plain and simple, no. If you want to discuss stellar evolution and astronomy, start a thread on it.

And I will go KO it if he does.

 

[warpus]

Can we get this thread closed now? - I think it's pretty obvious that it's nothing more than trolling on diablodelmar's part.

 

[El_Machinae]

What?!?

We're still waiting for Perfection to trounce my mtDNA contention. And ironduck is still waiting for his rainbow bit.

 

[ironduck]

I'm also waiting for my wooly mammoths and other cold climate animals on the ark, but I don't have great hopes for that

 

[Perfection]

its very biased Markus!

A lot of these use some pretty valid sources I must say, like his own website.

Like the following:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050306...=DinosaursAndFossils&varPage=TheIcaStones.jsp

Can we get this thread closed now? - I think it's pretty obvious that it's nothing more than trolling on diablodelmar's part.

If you think it's trolling, just report it and he will be dealt with. The thread will be able to recover from that. It's recovered from worse threadjackings before!

 

[El_Machinae]

That sounds like a challenge!

I'm also waiting for my wooly mammoths and other cold climate animals on the ark, but I don't have great hopes for that

Couldn't modern elephants have 'evolved' from a super elephant that contained genes for both elephants and wooly mammoths?

I'm curious as to whether the Creationists believe the T-Rex actually existed, and was on the Ark.

 

[ironduck]

Couldn't modern elephants have 'evolved' from a super elephant that contained genes for both elephants and wooly mammoths?

Well, one of the creationists in the previous threads said there were wooly mammoths at the time of the flood. So I should think they must've been on the ark. But he never replied to that. Nor to the whole arctic animals thing. Of course, once you believe the ark story is real the amount of questions that emerge are just neverending unless you pull the 'god did it' card.

I'm curious as to whether the Creationists believe the T-Rex actually existed, and was on the Ark.

Maybe god built a custom cage for it..

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, you could just tie up their mouths, like we do with crocodiles nowadays.

Though I cannot see how the Ark would've been big enough for two T-Rexes and two duckbill dinosaurs, etc. PLUS all the food needed.

edit: 'Creationisms' big weakness seems to be that we're assuming the Flood also occurred, if you defend Creationism. When the story of Noah's Ark is clearly false.

Are we fighting a paper tiger?

 

[ironduck]

I don't think just tying the mouth of a T-Rex is enough to make it harmless!

I'm not fighting anything in this thread, just here for the entertainment as well as learning new things now and then..

 

[Veritass]

God supplied Noah with plans to make the ark with advanced cryogenic life support systems for the T-Rex. These were of course made solely from hemp and beeswax, which bio-degraded so there is no trace of it left today.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Can we get this thread closed now? - I think it's pretty obvious that it's nothing more than trolling on diablodelmar's part.

If you think he's trolling, report him. Remember that you can demand he abide by the thread rules.

In the meantime, I have 'proof' that 'evolution' 'creates' 'information' from nowhere!

Spoiler :

diablodelmar, you have yet to give a definition of "information". As such, this "proof" pwns you, because it's more substantive than anything you've provided so far. Show us something of substance.