The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm done with this thread

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Predictions don't necessarily predict the future ...

Predicting the past is about as useful as a sarcasm detector. Has yours exploded yet?

 

[Sims2789]

Even if God created the Earth some 6000-odd years ago, there is still evolution. It can be observed in bacteria and viruses and adaptation can be observed in macro-organsims(evolution can be as well but remember that for this post I am assuming that God created the Earth in 7 days 6000-odd years ago).

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Then your post amounts to a straw-man defense. The earth is 4 billion years or so old.

 

[Sims2789]

^What amounts? I have no idea what you are talking about. Please clarify. Note that I do not believe in God and thus I obviously cannot believe that he created the Earth 6000-odd years ago.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm done with this thread

 

[Perfection]

I have yet to hear an accepted definition of species from an evolutionist. Until I do, a finch is a finch is a finch.

They are classified as different species as living animals are usually classified as per reproductive potential. Different species of finches (for the most part) cannot interbreed.

So, when you need it to mean different things, you use whatever definition of species is convienent? I'm done with this witness. Unless, that is, you'd care to enlighten this particular ignorant savage about why a method of delineating species is good for one group, and bad for another, and yet still valid?

Precisely, they do it because it's convenient. Ideally the biological speices concept (based on ability to interbreed) would be the sorting mechanism, however for asexual creatures and fossils it's simply impossible. So rather than saying that they cannot clasify it, taxonomists simply go by morphology (structure). This does not interfere with the ideas of evolutionary biology as when evolutionists discuss speciation they refer to the biological species concept, the fact that we cannot sort all species based off it does not render it invalid it just limits it's deliniatory potential. The biological species concept is the ideal, but for pragmatism, the morphological species concept is ued.

The key is that when evolutionists discuss speciation, they agree to use a single concept (the biological species concept) of species. As far as discussions of speciation are concerned the definitions are clear.

Chihuahua is NOT a species, it's a breed. Did I say 'duck' or American Banded Wood Duck? Did I say 'horse' or Appaloosa? Disingenuity does not win points.

Then your assertion that a species is a species because it's a species doesn't work either.

On what do you base this claim? I was unaware that we had devices for measuring atmospheric events from 4 billion ya...

Some life can survive at 3000 times a fatal dose of radiation for humans.
http://www.spaceref.com/redirect.html?id=0&url=www.ornl.gov/hgmis/publicat/hgn/v10n1/12deino.html

UV radiation may have been 100 or maybe 1000 times stonger, but it wasn't massive enough to destroy all life. Life is capable of dealing with very high levels of radiation. Even so, life may have orignated in deep water, or a cave which would block out a massive amount of radiation.

And as for your arguements based off UV radiation what evidnece do you have to support that it was enough to prevent abiogenesis from occuring? We know it's more, but where is a scrap of evidence that it would be fatal.

Oh and we do have ways to partially measure atmopheric composition, rocks! Certain rocks form in certain atmopheres, so we can get rough estimates of compositions from rocks!

More coming...

 

[Perfection]

Cooler = LESS ENERGY.

Umm it was taking about energy given off, not internal things. Those things are completly different.

True, but it also doesn't make them having been created less likely either. Quite the opposite in fact.

Not really, complexity can easily occur through relatively simplistic means. A great example is cellular automata. Complexity does not require intelligent design.

Leave 'just' out of that sentence, and you'll make a believer out of me.

This is not a prediction, it is an explanation of observed fact.

Actually it was a prediction, the prediction was the would find it, and they did. They've predicted a lot of things in this manner, see post #7 for more.

ISomeone once told me that the ToE had 'predicted' a certain in-between fossil at a certain geological strata. Given that the strata above and below it had the bookends for that fossil in them, wouldn't simple observation make that fact plainly evident?

Well, you're assuming that that observation occured. Maybe it didn't. I don't know what he was refering to though so I can't say authoritatively. Of course, his fallacy is not my fallacy, so it might be an argument against him, but it's not against me.

A theory that predicts objects eclipsing light sources will cast shadows on objects farther from the light is not a useful theory. Niether is the ToE, if the only thing it can predict is what anyone with a shred of common sense can tell you is already there.

So is the existance ofbeneficial mutations common sense?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm done with this thread

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm done with this thread

 

[carlosMM]

FL2: nice fallback.
predictions are now not good enough, now they must be useful. next thing they must be commercially viable, hu?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

that all you got?

what about the rest of it?

 

[carlosMM]

FL, the rest of it is absurd and we all here have been over it again and again.

You claimed mutaqtions didn't occur often enough - you dropped that claim later
You claimed beneficial mutations didn't occur - you dropped that claim jsut now.
You claimed there are no 'intermediate' fossils - you have been proven wrong wrong wrong again and again.

Obviously, you have a problem with evolution, you are not too stupid to understand it. So, I consider you crazy, and can't be bothered to waste my time with you.

btw, I gave you a challange once - what about it?
your biblical flood theory - I asked you to prove it! Come on, do that and I will take you for a sane person again!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm done with this thread

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

FL2, what does creationism predict a finch will look like in a million years?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

A finch. Creationism believes that Creation is done.

 

[Perfection]

I'm failing to serve you here, and it's starting to depress me. The ToE claims that morphological change occurs because of natural selection of mutations over time resulting in morphological change, but the only thing anyone has ever observed natural selection doing is variation within a species, sometimes to the point that sub-members of that species can no longer interbreed.

Then if populations form where interbreeding is impossible speciation has occured.

(Why two finches that can't interbreed are now two different species but still finches, I have yet to hear a credible explanation for.)

Because the term "finch" is higher than species it refers to a member of the family Fringillidae.

(These two sub-species still share all morphological characteristics of their species (beyond integumentary variations and often size), but can't successfully reproduce with each other for whatever reason. They remain members of the same species according to evolution (morphological species concept), but the BSC (natural selection variants within species) now calls them different species.

Questions:
Although the BSC claims that speciation has occurred, their morphologies remain identical. How will a paleontologist examining their fossils make the determination that speciation has occured? If he says they are the same species, is he wrong? If he says they are different species, how will he prove this?

Your running on the assertions that morphologies don't change with the failure to interbreed, but it's pricisely those changes that cause it. The morphologies are simply not identical.

(What is the criteria for one to say evolution has occurred? Is there more than one set of such criteria? If so, which is correct?

Can you rephrase that? I'm not understanding what you are asking.

(If all of the finches on the Galapagos Islands have a finch as their common ancestor, and they're still finches, then what are they evolving into (since clearly they must be transitional creatures)?

They're evolving from one type of finch to another. They don't need to change families to change species

(If the thing they're evolving into is a finch, then are they evolving, or just varying within the finch species, and maybe reproductive isolation isn't really a species boundary?

Once again, finches are a family, not a speices

(Seems to me that the BSC is not a legitimate definition of species. Having two definitions of species handy strikes me as the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty.)

Well, if you apply it to families it doesn't work. Finches aren't a species

Where's a scrap of evidence that it would not be?

The incredible amounts needed to prevent life seem unreasonable.

And this tells us about lightning how?

Lighting doesn't occur in a vacuum, FL2, atmopheric composition is important

Me dumb down notch. Young star hot. Old star cold.

Temperature is not the sole measure of luminosity. Young star hot and radiates less, old star cold and radiates more.

If you shook the parts around in a box, which do you think would be assembled first: a child's jigsaw puzzle, or a super-computer? Now, if you shook the jigsaw parts, and ran a super-computer off an assembly line, which do you think which finish first?

Strawman, I never said complexity always occurs, just that in certain instances it does occur.

Does complexity require intelligent design? Maybe not. Would intelligent design speed the process along? Resoundingly yes.

It's not a race to see which can get it done faster.

Predicting something obvious is not useful. A scientific theory has to make useful predictions, last I heard.

Woah, woah, woah, are saying that all those things I said in post #7 are obviously correct?

They they will happen from time to time is obvious. That random chance will preserve them against the forces of DNA self-repair until they can meet each other and reproduce is not.

So, that means if I can find an example that would be a non-obvious prediction of evolution, correct?

 

[Perfection]

Haven't been proven wrong once. There are gaps in the fossil record, with no fossils to plug into them. There are occurrences of creature X, creature Y, and Creature Z, where first X, then Y, then Z appears, and where traits in X appear in Y and Z, but there has never been a lick of proof that X became Y, nor that Y became Z. That has always been speculation, because there has never been an X1, X2, Y1, Y2, etc, to make a clear chain. X gets as far toward Y as it is going to get, and all of a sudden, Y just appears out of a yawning chasm betwixt the two.

There have been plenty of chains like that, it's just that creationists simply take two neighboring links of the chain and say it can't happen because those to chains have no links in between them. The fallacy is that could be continued indefinitly and there would still be no resolution.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm done with this thread

 

[Perfection]

Ducks have a staggering load of common features, and no appreciable morphological differences. So do finches.

That's simply incorrect, there are numerous differences in morphology, size coloration, body shape. A zebra finch is quite a bit different than a cardinal. They deserve to be families

The bible does not refer to families and species, having been written before modern taxonomical methods were developed. It refers to kinds, and states that animals reproduce after their own kind.

Point?

Seems to me like anatidea is a kind. Seems a LOT like fringillidae is too.

And this disproves evolution how?