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

[Souron]

Minor correction/clarification: "gravity at or near the sea level on earth".

I doubt civ2 knows enough physics to be able to screw around with the universal gravitation stuff, but still.

He doesn't know much about paleantology, yet he seems to screw around with that just fine.

I would have no problem with him screwing around with gravity here.

 

[carlosMM]

Cool! So how long will they last now if kept in museum conditions?

long enough

And then there is mechanical and laser and CT scanning.... so even if the bone is lost, the information is (mostly) preserved.

 

[civ2]

Do you believe me when I say "gravity is a constant force such that the speed of a falling object increases at a constant rate of about 10 meters per second"? Why/why not?

Minor correction/clarification: "gravity at or near the sea level on earth".

I doubt civ2 knows enough physics to be able to screw around with the universal gravitation stuff, but still.

My my...
Gravity is not a CONSTANT force but rather a permanent one - it is NOT constant through time as the very mass of all objects (including Earth) is constantly changing.
And g is also not constant because it changes with distance.
The changes are veeeery small - but it doesn't make it CONSTANT.
Also g at the equator and at poles is a bit different due to Earth's shape - it's not round but rather "geoidal".
Now, nihilistic.
I can believe you and others about such things simply because they can be easily measured and the error dismissed.
As I said, any statement connected with (long and beyond humanity) time CAN'T be checked and [dis]proved.
Which leaves it in a state of theory until we discover a time machine.
There's no proof other then scientists' theories that those bones belonged to animals of some different species.
They might have been either mutations of the known species - or the extinct ones.
BUT this doesn't mean the ones we have now EVOLVED from those!
They might be neighbours rather than relatives.
We can't check the very flow of evolution - again due to our time-related limitations.

 

[carlosMM]

My my...
Gravity is not a CONSTANT force but rather a permanent one - it is NOT constant through time as the very mass of all objects (including Earth) is constantly changing.

Mwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




my my, are you really so lacking in education that you do not know what 'constant' means???????

And g is also not constant because it changes with distance.

Doh!

any statement connected with (long and beyond humanity) time CAN'T be checked and [dis]proved.

Erhm, Mr. civ2, if you can't check it, show can you disprove it????????

 

[civ2]

carlito
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

(I also can write in that manner. )

Now seriously:
And WHAT does constant mean?
Maybe due to my English huh?
But I think it means something that doesn't change through time or distance.
(TWO versions.)

And how can you PROVE the thing you can't check?
An unprovable thing doesn't have to be disproved!

 

[carlosMM]

carlito
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

(I also can write in that manner. )

but you still do not adress the topic

Now seriously:
And WHAT does constant mean?

It means that it doesn't change - the CONTEXT in which it doesn't change, though, is something that totally escaped you

Think, civ2, think:
If the gas price has stayed the same for 5 day, then you cna say 'it has remained constant'. In YOUR logic, that would mean that 5 gallons cost the same as 10 gallons, which obviously is BS. It DOES mean that yesterday, 5 gallons cost as much as today, though.

So, for gravity: The same amount of material (the same mass) always exerts the same pull on another mass, wherever and whenever you go. Double the mass = double the force. Thus, the gravitational force is CONSTANT. Get it now????

And how can you PROVE the thing you can't check?
An unprovable thing doesn't have to be disproved!

That's beseides the point: you made the claim that it is
a) uncheckable and
b) thus disproven.

I want you to explain how that is supposed to be possible! You made that claim, you show how it is possible!

 

[carlosMM]

btw, civ2: you claimed that only very rarely complete fossils are found. I posted a numbre of pictures. Any comments??????? Or are oyu running away with your tail between your legs now?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

While on that topic, Wikipedia's featured article for today is Velociraptor, with over a dozen recovered fossil skeletons.

 

[civ2]

carlito
Maybe I was wrong about the exact number of full fossils - that doesn't change other points and doesn't make it more reliable concerning evolution.
Example I've just thought of:
We have lots of different cars.
Let's travel further in time.
Now it's year 2200 - and you suddenly discover a long lost collection of rare cars (by some weird millionaire who spent his all life on it ).
You can see dozens of different fully "fossilized" cars.
But there cars from the 1900's and from the 2000's standing side by side.
Can you really say they "evolved" oe from another?
(Cars DO "evolve" but ALL of them are very similar so it's hard to tell which is which.)
The cars you see on your streets are way different from these ones but (let's suppose this ok?) they still use the same gasoline and go by same 4 wheels.
Can you really be sure that ANY car from this collection has ANY "ancestor" still roaming the streets?
Don't forget that there can happen bancrupcies and the industries can merge.
But these events CAN'T be called evolution because the "evolution" of a car is when you have the same car under the same industry but upgraded in quality.
Peugeot don't evolve from Ferrari and neither vice versa!

 

[The Last Conformist]

@civ2: So, what's your alternative explanation for the diversity of life and of the fossil record?

Also, what's your excuse for formating your posts like an evil ******?

 

[Truronian]

carlito
Maybe I was wrong about the exact number of full fossils - that doesn't change other points and doesn't make it more reliable concerning evolution.
Example I've just thought of:
We have lots of different cars.
Let's travel further in time.
Now it's year 2200 - and you suddenly discover a long lost collection of rare cars (by some weird millionaire who spent his all life on it ).
You can see dozens of different fully "fossilized" cars.
But there cars from the 1900's and from the 2000's standing side by side.
Can you really say they "evolved" oe from another?
(Cars DO "evolve" but ALL of them are very similar so it's hard to tell which is which.)
The cars you see on your streets are way different from these ones but (let's suppose this ok?) they still use the same gasoline and go by same 4 wheels.
Can you really be sure that ANY car from this collection has ANY "ancestor" still roaming the streets?
Don't forget that there can happen bancrupcies and the industries can merge.
But these events CAN'T be called evolution because the "evolution" of a car is when you have the same car under the same industry but upgraded in quality.
Peugeot don't evolve from Ferrari and neither vice versa!

A car expert would be able to tell, as he could identify the detail of a specific car fossil (such as the Audi sign) and form a coherant theory as to how that car evolved into the 2200 Audi. From this theory, prediction could be made as to the appearence of a 2100 car, which could then be verified when a 2100 Audi is uncovered. Laymen on the otherhand would probably not be able to make these connections, as they have no understanding of cars.

 

[Dr Tiny]

With the cars you can tell different makes of cars apart, there are tell tale signs eg badges, materials used plus any design features eg a particular type of engine that is propierty to one particular company. The same is true of skeletons, you can tell by the shape and positioning of bones what a particular species would be like, a flying animal would have lighter bones than a big heavy creature. Thus you would be less likely to assume that they would be related eg a bird like species is likely to have evolved from another bird like species, if it had evolved from a non bird species then it might have characteristics of eg the big heavy non flying animal but you would be likely to find species with intermediate characteristics.

Also don't forget that fossils from different ages are found in different layers of rocks that can be dated and that an earlier species will not be found side by side with a species that evolved from it - this is a significant difference from the car example you cite.

Now we can never be 100% accurate if species B evolved from species A but given that B is always found later than A and shares characteristics then it is a good bet that it did. Unless we went around claiming that species B arose spontaneously then B must have evolved from an earlier species that we are 99% sure is A.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's a decent analogy, but the difference is that with car collections - the unique ones are kept on purpose. But are you really saying that with fossils, the unique ones (the non-breeding mutants) are the ones being kept - or even preferentially kept?

 

[civ2]

Also, what's your excuse for formating your posts like an evil ******?

HUH???

Also don't forget that fossils from different ages are found in different layers of rocks that can be dated and that an earlier species will not be found side by side with a species that evolved from it - this is a significant difference from the car example you cite

That's the point - how can you be sure that the species from different times have any connection and aren't just "similar".
If you take an Ichthiosaurus and compare it to a dolphin - how come you know they're not close relatives?
Time gap has no relevance since we have NOW crocs that lived before dinos. Maybe they extinct only 10 thousand years ago (or didn't at all - like Nessy )?
The lack of fossils doesn't prove their extinction - coherently with what YOU say about "missing links".

 

[Dr Tiny]

When just working with bones you can never be 100% sure that one species evolved from another. However the inheritence of characteristics eg light bones (obviously it would take more the sharing of many characteristics), would suggest that two species are related and would be consistent with what we know from genetics about the inheritence of characteristics. Regardless, even if it were true that B did not evolve from A that does not disprove evolution because B may well have evolved from C.

The different layers of rock is very important for dating fossils if rock type 1 is 200million years old and contains A but not B then we can assume that A is roughtly 200million years old. Similary if rock type 2 is 100 million years old contains fossil B but not A then we can assume that B is 100 million years old and that A died out 100-200 million years ago. Given that A and B share similar characteristics then one would assume that B evolved from A. This would be generally accepted unless someone finds a fossil to disprove that eg finding A in rock type 2 or B in rock type 1.

Even if B did not evolve from A it had to have evolved from something unless you want to assume that species are spontaneously created and die out.

 

[The Last Conformist]

HUH???

Normal people don't start every sentence on a new line. Normal people use paragraph breaks.

If you take an Ichthiosaurus and compare it to a dolphin - how come you know they're not close relatives?

Their wildly different jaws are a hint, for a start ...

How about you learn enough of paleontology and osteology that your questions aren't obviously stupid to a dilettante like me? I mean, I'm not asking you should be able to fool a professional like Carlos, but your present preformance is just sad.

 

[carlosMM]

carlito
Maybe I was wrong about the exact number of full fossils -

indeed. and it is not the 'exact' number, but you made a broad, generalized statement, on which you based your argumentation. So, your entire argument is flawed, buddy.

that doesn't change other points and doesn't make it more reliable concerning evolution.

cow droppings - you were, again, caught massively wrong and uninformed. You should start questioning your sources on other issues as well - seeems those sources lie a lot!

Example I've just thought of:
We have lots of different cars.
Let's travel further in time.
Now it's year 2200 - and you suddenly discover a long lost collection of rare cars (by some weird millionaire who spent his all life on it ).
You can see dozens of different fully "fossilized" cars.
But there cars from the 1900's and from the 2000's standing side by side.
Can you really say they "evolved" oe from another?
(Cars DO "evolve" but ALL of them are very similar so it's hard to tell which is which.)

Tsk tsk, I distinctly remember explaining to you repeatedly how designed objects are not a good example for living organisms. Are you intentionally picking unsuitable examples?

 

[carlosMM]

If you take an Ichthiosaurus and compare it to a dolphin - how come you know they're not close relatives?

First, as explained to you before, it is 'ichtyosaurs'. Second, we know because of e.g. the massive differences in the shape and alignment of skull elements, the massive differences in flipper shape, the massive differences in tooth form, shape and development, and so on. As opposed to you, scientists study hte tiny details, not the vague broad generalizations.

Time gap has no relevance since we have NOW crocs that lived before dinos.

Please, do post pictures of 'a crocodile that lived before dinosaurs'. Just one will do........

 

[civ2]

carlito
OK maybe not exactly before but alongside indeed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperCroc

65 million years is a long enough "gap" - isn't it?
And this croc isn't VERY much different from nowadays ones.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Wikipedia doesn't deign to give a more exact date than "early Cretaceous", but that's at any rate tens of millions of years older than 65 Mya.