The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[Perfection]

Could you show how his theory is wrong? You can't just say that because my theory is right yours is wrong, you must show the flaw in the theory.

There has been evidence of glaciation in the geological record predating that.

A)you seem to be misinterprenting what i said, i did not say the earth was 400million years old. i said the tempature was too hot to produce much life before then. yes life appears to have showed up on earth about 3.5 million years ago. but that life was essentialy algae or pond scum.

1. The fossil record shows multicellular predating 400 million years
2. Pond scum is very sophisticated life, the evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes has to be among the most profound evolutionary changes in the history of the planet. The past billion or so years marks the ascent of multicellularity, but don't go knocking unicellular organisms, they have the most profound and interesting evolutionary changes.

well, it sems cohereant to me, and you didn't have to ask me again i was originally asked by birdjaguar asked me if i belived in geological time. i gae an answer (which sense you can't seem to understand my other answer was 'yes, i believe the days mntioned in the bible are figurative, but at the same time i'm not 100% sure) you then asked me a yes or no question, i replyed with yes. you then said that i should belive that the earth is old and had a long time for life to devolp. pehpas i sould have been clearer and mentioned that i ment advanced life, which in hindsight it looks like i didn't menion in my post, and almost gave an impression to the contrary, sorry for the misscomunication

Why can't it be figurative and include evolution.

so basically you believe in evolution despite the huge amount of evidence to the contrary

Evidence to the contrary, what evidence to the contrary? Your arguement of limited variation doesn't work because equally profound ones have been observed (also, may I note that you are arguing based on the lack of overwhelming evidence in a certain measurement on a certain species in short period of time not contradictory evidence). Your qoute by the materials science guy is innacurate, where's the evidence?

because he felt like it. just because an intelligent designer does something doesn't mean it has to amke sense to us

Well, if you admit there's no sense to it, then how can you say your thoery is better than ours?

perhaps the orriginal whale's appearance was what the intelligent designer thought was best for him in the begining, is no longer best for him now.

Useless vestigial organs? Unlikely!

because that's the intelligent designer's way of making things different, a pretty boring world if everything looked the same

so god creates defective animals just to spice things up?

 

[Perfection]

It also needs long ages, but long ages can not explain how things evolve. Natural selection helps to explain how the changes live after the changes, but it in it's self doesn't not explain how the changes got there (or the way it evolved), so you can not use it for evidence for evolution. I don't know of any creationist that doesn't believe, in natural selection, unless they mean by it that they do not believe that natural selection could in it's self cause some thing to evolve.

The key to natural selection's power is it can direct variation in a specefic path. Natural selection is the engine that runs on the fuel of variation from the filling station of mutation. Natural selection allows beneficial variations to accrue and give rise to new and unique traits that niether variation or mutation alone could produce.

 

[Saga of Gemini]

you get my to stare openmouthed at the screen with your post fairly regularly!

evolution requires mutation, leading to variation, and a natural selection.

these examples prove the latter.

that seems very good in a text book in reality it dosnt all mutations ( unlles u believe in the x-men comics) are not a good source for a species to evolve since they are not at all benefitial.

Tell me does yours or anyone stereo works better if u suddenly put a stick in it??......I wonder....mine dosnt....

Or lets say that there are benefitial mutations.....as u know ( and I hope u wont deny it ) most of them are not benefitial.
So lets put it like this would u trust a doctor wich u know most of his patients died? Or would u let a driver wich has had many many many acidents drive you?.

Plus mathematics ( in the hands of great scientists like Fred Hoyle) have already discarded mutations and ramdomness as any source of evolution.

 

[Saga of Gemini]

The key to natural selection's power is it can direct variation in a specefic path. Natural selection is the engine that runs on the fuel of variation from the filling station of mutation. Natural selection allows beneficial variations to accrue and give rise to new and unique traits that niether variation or mutation alone could produce.

By chance? the way u are saying ti it looks to me that u give some sort of intelligence to NS......as if it was alive and thinking.

 

[Saga of Gemini]

so god creates defective animals just to spice things up?

Would u say plains have intelligent design?....and still dont they crash from time to time?.

Dont get me wrong I believe in natural selection I understand that the most fit survive and other species can die.....but I dont believe it produces any kind of evolution.

plus why do they have to be defective?.

 

[Perfection]

that seems very good in a text book in reality it dosnt all mutations ( unlles u believe in the x-men comics) are not a good source for a species to evolve since they are not at all benefitial.

WRONGO!!! http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Tell me does yours or anyone stereo works better if u suddenly put a stick in it??......I wonder....mine dosnt....

No, but some interesting variations on evolutionary ideas have been used to create working circuitry.

Or lets say that there are benefitial mutations.....as u know ( and I hope u wont deny it ) most of them are not benefitial.

But some are, natural selection keeps the good and gets rid of the bad!

[/QUOTE]So lets put it like this would u trust a doctor wich u know most of his patients died? Or would u let a driver wich has had many many many acidents drive you?[/QUOTE]No because there's nothing to correct the problems unlike in evolution which has natural selection

Plus mathematics ( in the hands of great scientists like Fred Hoyle) have already discarded mutations and ramdomness as any source of evolution.

Undirected randomness yes, but random variation coupled by the natural selection, absolutly not!

 

[Perfection]

Would u say plains have intelligent design?....and still dont they crash from time to time?

But they don't have clearly useless structures that the plane could easily do without.

Dont get me wrong I believe in natural selection I understand that the most fit survive and other species can die.....but I dont believe it produces any kind of evolution.

Why not?

plus why do they have to be defective?.

Early whales have bones with absolutly no purpose.

 

[Saga of Gemini]

It went against strict-Darwinian evolution, but is explanable with punctuated equilibrium.

This is funny lol why? well it proves to me that evolution its a simple dogma. Why u ask simple. by this answer I get this: "When theres something that contradicts the theory we dont think theres something wrong with the theory.....we think theres something wrong with what dosnt fit". I like it how punctuated equillibrium is totally untracable....therefore can be used as an excuse like in this case.....But dont mind me.

 

[Perfection]

This is funny lol why? well it proves to me that evolution its a simple dogma. Why u ask simple. by this answer I get this: "When theres something that contradicts the theory we dont think theres something wrong with the theory.....

Actually that contradiction is the precise reason why punctuated equilibrium was developed. There was something wrong with strict-darwinian theory, punctuated equilibrium corrects the theory.

we think theres something wrong with what dosnt fit". I like it how punctuated equillibrium is totally untracable....therefore can be used as an excuse like in this case.....But dont mind me.

How is it untracable, it just says that instead of the previous idea of a smooth gradual transition there should be instances of relative stasis and periods relatively fast change. Asteroid impacts and other catastrophes as well principles like peak shifting and adaptive radiation gives much credence to the idea of inconstant rates of change.

 

[Saga of Gemini]

But they don't have clearly useless structures that the plane could easily do without.

How do u know that? Plus why are they useless?

Why not?

Do u remeber our first argument perfection? :

A lion can be more apt than another lion,but it dosnt explain me how it became a lion

Early whales have bones with absolutly no purpose.

I recently bougth some legos...they came with extra pieces wich have no pourpuse in the lego design....does it make my fully armed lego defective?

Plus things as the apendix humans have are useless now...but before they had use ( as I recall my biology teacher saying).

Have u ever played a puzzle of squares? u know those things that come in a mark and u have to move the pieces to form a picture....If u look at the picture already completed...theres a blank space....it serves nom pourpuse to the picture...but its vital to solving the puzzle. And unless u see someone solving it or solve one yourself.....the blank space serves no pourpuse....couldnt it be the same?.

BTW note how I gave u the whale point without asking u for a source of the info

 

[Phydeaux]

Too many! I'd say if anything there is not enough! Every time we find a transitional fossil it turns one gap into two smaller gaps! The more gaps the better!

Ok well I ment there are to many big gaps.

It went against strict-Darwinian evolution, but is explanable with punctuated equilibrium.

Punctuated equilibrium, makes evolution even less probable, because it shortens the time there is for evolution. Orgens would have to evolve, and it would have to happen with out leaving fossils. I really do not see how Punctuated equilibrium could do that, but maybe I'm just missing some thing...

I am unfamiliar with that, please elaborate

Well Bighorn Basin has a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about 5 million years, in the early if the mammals. It was thought that, because it was so complete they could use it to show continuous evolution. But, species that where once thought to have turned into others overlap with there descendents, the record does not show any transition one species to another, and species ramain unchanged for about one million years before disappearing.

However they aren't the same species as the ancient varieties, so to allege that they lived the whole time god must of recreated them or they evolved.

If dino's where found do you think that evolution would be proven wrong?
I don't think so, they would smiply say they lived in such small numbers, they didn't leave fossils, or we couldn't find them.

But it does make you think why would it by intelligently designed just to be wiped out again, and why doesn't god ever reuse extinct species? If we just say "god did it" dogmatically and can't speculate on how god would go about doing it then we can't use it to make testible thoeries rendering creationism unscientific, dogmatic, and unable to explain why things are the way they are other than "because god wanted them to be that way".

There is no way I could ever know why or how. I'll think about this, and reply later.

 

[Perfection]

How do u know that? Plus why are they useless?

I'm assuming engineers are smart enough not to waste resources on useless parts. They are useless becuse no whale needs hip bones, no whales need a pelvis.

I recently bougth some legos...they came with extra pieces wich have no pourpuse in the lego design....does it make my fully armed lego defective?

But they do have a purpose in the lego design, if you foolishly lose a piece your lego design can still be created!

Plus things as the apendix humans have are useless now...but before they had use ( as I recall my biology teacher saying).

Precisely, same with those bones seen in whales! They had a use back when they we're land animals, but they evolved to the point where they were useless, just like our appendix!

Have u ever played a puzzle of squares? u know those things that come in a mark and u have to move the pieces to form a picture....If u look at the picture already completed...theres a blank space....it serves nom pourpuse to the picture...but its vital to solving the puzzle. And unless u see someone solving it or solve one yourself.....the blank space serves no pourpuse....couldnt it be the same?

Well considering that modern whales have lost much of those traits and do just fine there seems to be little purpose!

 

[carlosMM]

no, it shows selection, but that by itself doesn't show darwinism. stuff exists, that is an end claim of intelligent design, however, pointing out that stuff exists in no way advances intelligent design's claims in any way

it is rare that a creationist actually uses logic!

it does indeed show selection - and, btw, variation - but not more.
2 of the 3 pillars of Darwinism.

 

[carlosMM]

It also needs long ages, but long ages can not explain how things evolve. Natural selection helps to explain how the changes live after the changes, but it in it's self doesn't not explain how the changes got there (or the way it evolved), so you can not use it for evidence for evolution. I don't know of any creationist that doesn't believe, in natural selection, unless they mean by it that they do not believe that natural selection could in it's self cause some thing to evolve.

sorry, phdeaux, but you are just too plain stupid.

Evolution claims several things - among them secltion happens, variation exists. It claims mire, but that's not the point here. The point here is that the finches and moths prove beyond doubt that variation exists,a nd that selection favors different varieties at different times. No more, no less.

99,9% of creationists claim variation doesn't exist or selction doesn't happen. Becasue IF it happenes, then species will change: the moth is usually white or it isn't, it is usually black. That is a change - and to get out of that you have to redefine species. As long as you accept the scientific definition of species, you msut also acknowlege species change.

 

[ybbor]

Precisely, same with those bones seen in whales! They had a use back when they we're land animals, but they evolved to the point where they were useless, just like our appendix!

well, i may be wrong, but wouldn't the hip provide the hinge for the back flipper? (note i have not seen a whale bone structure, so i'm asking a question, not amking a proposition) and even if they didn't wouldn't bone in that area procide support, and more protection if an animal were to bite the whale there?

 

[carlosMM]

Looking at the fossil record I can not see evidence for evolution (as in one living thing changing slowly into all the living things we see to day). There are too many gaps, although you may be able could come up with an explanation for the gaps, it still does not prove the theory.

open your eyes!


sorry, but anyone who has lokked into the matter a bit will see the many examples of evolution. Just read that book i recommended by Kemp, T. (1982) on mammal origin.

There are also some things that go against evolution in the fossil record, such as the Cambrian explosion

hu? this is even consitstent with Darwin, albeit only because of the long record gap before it, but most certainly with the synthetic theory of evolution.

, and Bighorn Basin.

eh, been there, seen it, checked out the rocks. You'll have to elaborate a bit before I can see what you mean.

Also just because some thing has not been seen in the fossil record for millions years does not mean that they could not have lived with man, there is evidence against that, such as the Coelacanth which was not seen for 65 million years, there are also stories of them, and drawings of them. So it could be that at least one kind of dino could be living to day.

with the slight problem that any new species today that has not been seen for 65 million years always turns out to be a deep sea species - and against all claims by ignorant dinosaurs were solely land-living creatures.

What does this have to do with Evolution? Just because "99,99% of all species" are gone does not mean there must be evolution, it just means they are gone, and nothing else.

indeed - and that kicks Genesis right out of the stadium. Along with most of the 'repetitive creation' theories.

I will bookmark this post where you acknowledge that this is true - I remember when you argued otherwise!

 

[Perfection]

Ok well I ment there are to many big gaps.

How do you define a "big gap" and how many would you need to be filled to believe in evolution?

Punctuated equilibrium, makes evolution even less probable, because it shortens the time there is for evolution. Orgens would have to evolve, and it would have to happen with out leaving fossils. I really do not see how Punctuated equilibrium could do that, but maybe I'm just missing some thing...

Shortening the time frame is okay, because it compensates by increasing the speed within the time frame. And punctuated equilibirum does leave it's distinct mark in the fossil record. Things like the cambrian explosion illustrate the power of adaptive radiation. And since it works faster it leaves fewer fossils.

Well Bighorn Basin has a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about 5 million years, in the early if the mammals. It was thought that, because it was so complete they could use it to show continuous evolution. But, species that where once thought to have turned into others overlap with there descendents, the record does not show any transition one species to another, and species ramain unchanged for about one million years before disappearing.

Well if the evolution of the new species from the previous didn't occur in Bighorn basin it can easily be accounted for. Remember, a new species can come from a relatively unchanged one!

If dino's where found do you think that evolution would be proven wrong?
I don't think so, they would smiply say they lived in such small numbers, they didn't leave fossils, or we couldn't find them.

Correct, but I would be highly suprised (even more than just finding dinos) if they were the same species as an ancestral one.

There is no way I could ever know why or how. I'll think about this, and reply later.

So you admit creationism has no explanitory power

 

[carlosMM]

Could you show how his theory is wrong? You can't just say that because my theory is right yours is wrong, you must show the flaw in the theory.

the theory that earth was too hot for live until 400 million years ago is proiven false by the abundance of rock of greater age with fossils.

what else can I say?

or did you not understand what we were arguing?

 

[carlosMM]

Jacob probably got his knowledge from the Egyptians. Egyptians no doubt know a lot about nature and gravity without any modern icons as Newton and Darwin. it's amazing the Egyptians built the pyramids without Newton's law of gravity.

eh, not really.

first, we do not know what they knew - after all we know they knew about Pythagoras - but only from their survey instruments.

second, they needed a lot fo trial and error to get there.

third, the pyramids are actually over-engineered.

but, to get back to the point: please answer my QUESTION!!!!!! Yes or no?????

does that mean you stipulate to massive changes in a animals appearance and behaviour through mutation and selection?

well?
yes or no? shut up or money up!

and what does the fact that there might be a little blurp about it in the bible have to do with scientifically proven facts?

well?
what does it have to do with scientific fact?

 

[carlosMM]

You gave me some picture-graphs, with very little by way of explanation. I've studied them to some extent, and I see vast yawning chasms where the missing link species should be. Could you re-up these 'proofs' with the relevant portions highlighted somehow? Apparently I'm just not seeing what you're seeing...

sorry, but I am not going to pot a couple of (btw copyrighted) books for you pleasure here. Go to a library, find them, read them. It is YOUR job to get YOUR info after I point you to it.

If you can't be bothered to do so, shut up. I am not claiming I know how to repair your Ford pickup, so don't come to this place claiming you know anything about evolution until you actually bother to look at the evidence.

I'll be happy to provide you with further pointers once you have those books before you.