The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

[The 777 Hoax]

The fact that their are more than more religon prooves god doesnt exist

No, it proves that many people believe in different things.

 

[ironduck]

Do you mean, the fact that there is more than one religion proves that God doesn't exist? Because if so, I'm not buying it.

It does seem to indicate that..

1) There are multiple gods.

or

2) The god(s) does not care about most humans enough to clarify its existence (since most have differing views on said existence and general character).

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It does seem to indicate that..

1) There are multiple gods.

or

2) The god(s) does not care about most humans enough to clarify its existence (since most have differing views on said existence and general character).

Or that God does care a lot about humans, but for reasons that we are not able to understand is unwilling or unable to reveal everything about Himself to us (we probably wouldn't understand it), and that humans naturally try to fill in the blanks when we have incomplete information.

But let's not talk about this. Let's point out that "half a feather" will keep you warm, and that later it is a pleasant surprise that it helps you glide.

 

[ybbor]

btw, isn't it interesting that a creationist will always FAIL to mention that 'explosion' covers a HUGE timeframe?

yet unprecedented anywhere else in the fossil record

 

[ironduck]

Or that God does care a lot about humans, but for reasons that we are not able to understand is unwilling or unable to reveal everything about Himself to us (we probably wouldn't understand it), and that humans naturally try to fill in the blanks when we have incomplete information.

But let's not talk about this. Let's point out that "half a feather" will keep you warm, and that later it is a pleasant surprise that it helps you glide.

Perfection is gonna get mad now because he doesn't want this stuff in the thread

Anyway, I don't like the argument that god can reveal a fair amount of the truth to whoever happens to be his followers, while the rest of the world can't join in - even though I'm sure you'll agree that it would be unreasonable to say that the rest of the world are just too stupid or immature to understand what the 'select few' of the 'true religion' understand.

For instance, if mormons have it right then does that mean that all the muslims and hindus and everyone else just aren't capable enough to get it right? The result, as you know, is that people hit each other on the head with their various moral beliefs that they deem to be true.

No. The only argument I can see that would make sense would be that god/gods want us to discover the truth on our own, but that the various organized religions that exist really have nothing to do with it.

 

[warpus]

No. The only argument I can see that would make sense would be that god/gods want us to discover the truth on our own, but that the various organized religions that exist really have nothing to do with it.

Well said.

Anyone claiming to know the mind of God is simply full of him/herself.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Anyway, I don't like the argument that god can reveal a fair amount of the truth to whoever happens to be his followers, while the rest of the world can't join in - even though I'm sure you'll agree that it would be unreasonable to say that the rest of the world are just too stupid or immature to understand what the 'select few' of the 'true religion' understand.

For instance, if mormons have it right then does that mean that all the muslims and hindus and everyone else just aren't capable enough to get it right? The result, as you know, is that people hit each other on the head with their various moral beliefs that they deem to be true.

No. The only argument I can see that would make sense would be that god/gods want us to discover the truth on our own, but that the various organized religions that exist really have nothing to do with it.

God isn't going to hold it against anyone if they don't have the correct understanding of Him, if they are doing thr best they can. When people are fighting each other, it usually isn't over their exact conceptions of God, but either way they can only blame themselves. God also wants us to figure things out on our own, but He knows that most of us won't get it right. The way I see it, He wants the best for it but for whatever reason it is only necessary that a few people have the complete truth. Like I have said, I don't understand it fully but I am willing to accept that.

As far as evolution . . . can Creationists explain cladistic relationships? How do those work?

Remember, in this thread we are on the same side.

 

[Perfection]

yet unprecedented anywhere else in the fossil record

Adaptive radiation certainly is precedented elsewhere, for example mammalian diversity increased greatly after the KT event.

 

[carlosMM]

yet unprecedented anywhere else in the fossil record

erhm, could you please point out any other time and place where such a whopping radiation was also possible? You'll be hard pressed to find an instance where such a combination of factors is available to allow such massive basal differentiation - once it has happened, the niches are taken.

OTOH, what about the radiation of insects on land? What little in the wy of fossils we have is still indicative of a massive and rather 'sudden' radiation.



btw, I am quite disappointed that you fail to address any of the other issues raised - can I take it as a 'I can't answer'? (read: the usual creationist cherry-picking, insinuating that since you have something akin to an answer to one point, all others are moot).

 

[diablodelmar]

Carlos will hang you on this one, so I'll just point out you're making a logical error in assuming feathers necessarily originally evolved as flight surfaces.

You know what kind of lungs non-avian dinosaurs had because ... ?

Since you're not going to give me a meaningful measure of "information" in context, this claim is empty.

ok dude, I'll try and expand a bit.

We do know what kind of lungs Dinosaurs had because they are reptiles.

Also, take this example for the "loss of information" law. A dog can be bred to have long or short hair. It is simply done by only allowing the dogs that have long hair to mate. By this process, you are losing the genes for short hair, and only keeping the ones for long hair. No information is gained.

It was the same with all the different species of bears that all "evolved" from 1 species. There was no loss of information. The first bear that walked the earth had the genes for all species of bear; polar bear, black bear, grizzly bear, himalaya bear - you name it. The genes were progressivly lost over time...

Evolution is rather easy to disprove when people look at it without bias, like me.

Last conformist, can you scientifically disprove me?

 

[diablodelmar]

I will - tomorrow!

Gladly

and a very(!) short sneak-preview into current paleontological thinking: it seems that a bird-style lung, complete with air sacs and a unidirectional flow, is ancestral to saurischians Ask Steve Perry and consorts from Bonn University.

this proves absolutly nil. That fact may or may not be correct (most probably the latter) but how do you explain for the fact that all the dinosaurs are supposed to have evolved into birds.

Also, explain for me this while you're at it: the dinosaurs that have supposedly died out millions of years ago have been found not only in fossil form, but a few have actually been found with flesh still on them!!! yes, it appears that they died so recently that there still was felsh on them. The particular skeleton structure was found underneath sand as well, and you know that sand blows away relativly easily. So if this sand bank had a million years of weathering to uncover it, then why the heck is it still there? If it would have been uncovered then it would have decayed and we would never have seen it.

Please, understand that just because everybody in the world who is clever believes in evolution, it doesn't mean you have to believe in it too.

 

[carlosMM]

ok dude, I'll try and expand a bit.

We do know what kind of lungs Dinosaurs had because they are reptiles.

you know, it has been ages since someone pulled a 'drawer logic' on me!

Please, bring proof that dinosaurs are reptiles - and while you are at it, please define 'reptile'.

THEN we talk.

Also, take this example for the "loss of information" law. A dog can be bred to have long or short hair. It is simply done by only allowing the dogs that have long hair to mate. By this process, you are losing the genes for short hair, and only keeping the ones for long hair. No information is gained.

FYI: hair length in dogs is genetically determined, but not via a 'short hair' and a 'long hair' gene. Rather, you are dealing with several genes, and the more are present in the 'active' allel, the longer the hair gets.

It was the same with all the different species of bears that all "evolved" from 1 species. There was no loss of information. The first bear that walked the earth had the genes for all species of bear; polar bear, black bear, grizzly bear, himalaya bear - you name it. The genes were progressivly lost over time...

So you are saying that the first ever organism carried all genes for all later organisms, and the resulting species today are all equipped with a remnant of the old complete gene pool?

Please, define which 'types' are the oney that were 'first' (i.e. had all the genes), and please specify the cellular mechanisms how such a huge genome would be handled during mitosis and meiosis.

Evolution is rather easy to disprove when people look at it without bias, like me.

You do not have 'no bias', you have a significant lack of knowledge.

Last conformist, can you scientifically disprove me?

You know, it is extremely easy - you will not be able to give a scientifically viable definition of 'reptile', thus the classification you base your logic on will fall apart.

come on, give us that definition. And one for 'dinosaur', while you are at it.

 

[carlosMM]

this proves absolutly nil.

erhm, you say dinos have 'reptile' lungs (bidirectional flow), I tell you your knowledge on dinos is outdated by a few decades. What was I attempting to 'prove'?

give us a viable definition and we can talk.

 

[diablodelmar]

Or that God does care a lot about humans, but for reasons that we are not able to understand is unwilling or unable to reveal everything about Himself to us (we probably wouldn't understand it), and that humans naturally try to fill in the blanks when we have incomplete information.

But let's not talk about this. Let's point out that "half a feather" will keep you warm, and that later it is a pleasant surprise that it helps you glide.

please sir, wouild you give me a modern example of "half of a feather"? I don't see any - do you? aawww come on there must be some because after all our own (as humans) supposed "half way point" still exists - the ape. If ours still exists, then why dont we at least have one bird species whos feathers arent fully developed, but strangely enough - we don't!

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Also, take this example for the "loss of information" law. A dog can be bred to have long or short hair. It is simply done by only allowing the dogs that have long hair to mate. By this process, you are losing the genes for short hair, and only keeping the ones for long hair. No information is gained.

Read this.

Let's say you have a gene for short hair, it gets duplicated, and the duplicate mutates. Information gained.

 

[diablodelmar]

Read this.

Let's say you have a gene for short hair, it gets duplicated, and the duplicate mutates. Information gained.

Wow that is one huge article - and its wrong because there are no living examples of where genes are actually created. Its a loss of information, the dog will still have other genes with which to play around with - like eyesight, hearing, feet size etc.

 

[diablodelmar]

erhm, you say dinos have 'reptile' lungs (bidirectional flow), I tell you your knowledge on dinos is outdated by a few decades. What was I attempting to 'prove'?

give us a viable definition and we can talk.

Carlos - read the rest of the post because I edited it.

 

[carlosMM]

this proves absolutly nil. That fact may or may not be correct (most probably the latter) but how do you explain for the fact that all the dinosaurs are supposed to have evolved into birds.

erhm, not all did - just one branch! A small group of maniraptorans.

what TV channel have you been watching? Fantasy TV?

Also, explain for me this while you're at it: the dinosaurs that have supposedly died out millions of years ago have been found not only in fossil form, but a few have actually been found with flesh still on them!!! yes, it appears that they died so recently that there still was felsh on them. The particular skeleton structure was found underneath sand as well, and you know that sand blows away relativly easily. So if this sand bank had a million years of weathering to uncover it, then why the heck is it still there? If it would have been uncovered then it would have decayed and we would never have seen it.

Proof! Now!

I am a vertebrate paleontologist - if anything like that was somewhere out there, I'd know it. You make such an absurd claim, you'll have to bring proof.

Please, understand that just because everybody in the world who is clever believes in evolution, it doesn't mean you have to believe in it too.

You know, this seems to me to be your problem: you think evolution is a matter of BELIEF, while in reality it is a scientific theory. It is about facts, and the best way to explain them. Not about 'believing'.

I have studied geology/paleontology and biology, and I have researched quite a few things myself. I have been out in the field (and long for my next chance to go again) and dug out dinosaurs (and other animals), I have preparated them out of the sedminet, I have run them through CT scanners. I have studied skeletons in many a museum.

I guess I know what dinsoaurs are all about. I have my doubts about your knowledge, though. Thus, I understand that this simple fact escapes you: the evidence is out there, for those who go and look. And for them, it is not a matter of belief, or of what others say. It is about cold, hard facts. Facts many preachers will dislike, but I can't change them to make someone else happy who never bothered to go look.

Now give me that definition, please! before we can argue science, we must agree on the vocabulary.

 

[diablodelmar]

you know, it has been ages since someone pulled a 'drawer logic' on me!

Please, bring proof that dinosaurs are reptiles - and while you are at it, please define 'reptile'.

THEN we talk.



FYI: hair length in dogs is genetically determined, but not via a 'short hair' and a 'long hair' gene. Rather, you are dealing with several genes, and the more are present in the 'active' allel, the longer the hair gets.



So you are saying that the first ever organism carried all genes for all later organisms, and the resulting species today are all equipped with a remnant of the old complete gene pool?

Please, define which 'types' are the oney that were 'first' (i.e. had all the genes), and please specify the cellular mechanisms how such a huge genome would be handled during mitosis and meiosis.


You do not have 'no bias', you have a significant lack of knowledge.


You know, it is extremely easy - you will not be able to give a scientifically viable definition of 'reptile', thus the classification you base your logic on will fall apart.

come on, give us that definition. And one for 'dinosaur', while you are at it.

yo carlos - how old are you? FYI I am only 14, yet you have some smart biologist job. This not only means your knowledge of cells, genes etc is going to be greater than mine, but also that you can turn a blind eye to the truth if you want to.

So far you haven't proved anything to me. You only ask stupid questions like "define reptile". if anyone should know its you because your some hotshot in the field of science.

 

[carlosMM]

yo carlos - how old are you? FYI I am only 14, yet you have some smart biologist job. This not only means your knowledge of cells, genes etc is going to be greater than mine, but also that you can turn a blind eye to the truth if you want to.

I have no problem with you being 14 - no worries!
And if you promise to keep an open mind, I'd be delighted to explain to you where you err.

But I do have a problem when you claim to speak with authority despite the fact that you KNOW you lack even basic data!

How can you make claims about genetics withou ever having studied them? Not quite sensible, isn't it? Or do you tell your doctor what causes your fever and stomach pain, and ignore whatever he says?
No, you will usually trust an expert, unless you have a good reason to distrust him, right? Doctor, lawyer, painter, plumber - they tell you about their field of work and you will listen - why not biologists and paleontolgists? What's the reason you think you can not better an MD on the topic of cancer, but you can better a biologist on biology?


To answer your question: I am 30, have a diploma from Tuebingen university in geology/paleontology, and work currently on my doctoral thesis (actually, it is done, I am writing the stuff down while working on my post-PhD project) on computer simulating dinosaur locomotion.