The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[carlosMM]

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.

I have seen about 100 fossils of feathered dinosaurs with varying degrees of 'Y' and 'Z' and 'X'. There's a plethora of early whales with limbs intermediate between a land animal and todays whales.

If you deny their existence I'd like to invite you to our Museum here!

Horse evolution, big cat evolution, saruopod dinosaur evolution, many others have long clear chains.

 

[carlosMM]

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

yes, you dumb down notch, you no know astrophysics! Me know because me read book

actually, radiation depends a LOT on heat transfer within the star; and on how the star genertaes the energy (H fusion or He fusion, e.g.)

 

[carlosMM]

anatidea is a family
fringillidae is a family

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

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.

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

and now we get back to that old thread were you were asked by me to give a definition of kind, and ended up not responding to the thread anymore.

well, could you give a proper definition now, please?

 

[The Last Conformist]

If a theory has to predict the future to be valid, we can start with axing all astronomical theories, which means all arguments re: the luminosity of stars are invalid.

If we're being slightly less stupid, however, we note that there's a trivially simple way to combine falling temperature with increased luminosity (which means increased energy output) - you simply increase the size of the star. Which just happens to be what astrophysics predict that main sequence stars do as they age.

As for FL2's apparent belief that species and genera are objectively existing categories, I was until now under the impression that that kind of naive Platonism was dead. Apparently not.

 

[Perfection]

@Carlos and TLC

You guys are awesome. (Non-Alcoholic) Drinks are on me!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

EDIT: I'm done with this thread.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Drama queen. FYI, "all astronomical theories" do/can predict, especially astrophysics. The positions, trajectories, and interactions of heavenly bodies are as predictable as a Swiss clock. Your hyperbole is no substitute for the truth.

The issue was predicting the future. If you ditch evolution because it can't predict what will happen in a million years, you have to ditch all observational science, which includes astrophysics.

And how does that apply to our situation?

You were claiming that as a star gets colder, it emits less energy.

It is not my belief, it is evolution’s. I believe that species and genera are artificial categorizations designed to create an artificial ‘barrier’ where one can say: “Here endeth the long-eared fruit bats, here beginneth the medium-eared fruit bats”, or some equally silly ‘differentiation’ so one can make up a new species.

I'd respect you more if you were less prone to lie.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I guarantee you an astrophysicist can predict with 100% certainty exactly where Jupiter will be in fifteen days. He can predict with 99.999% certainty where it will be in 15,000 years.

 

[Perfection]

According to the ToE, will a Fringillidae have Fringillidae children, or will it have children outside its family? Fringillidae huh? Well, I guess Creation was right.

Not really, the fact that it is unlikely we would classify it as as a new family is not because new familes cannot form, it's just that the addition of a new strange (by strange I mean markedly morphologically different) group of individuals wouldn't likely be split into a new family by taxonomists. However, say a few million years pass and this strange group grows into a bunch of species with the strange traits, then it's likely that taxonomists would reclassify the strange group into a new famaly. Once again, the debate is just an attack at the impricise nature of taxonomy, not evidence against evolution.

The point here is not to disprove the ToE, it is to show that Creation has not yet been disproved.

Umm, in the begiining I had two purposes:
1. To show evolution is a valid scientific claim
2. To show creationism is not a valid scientific claim

Showing something has not been disproved is not enough to declare it a valid scientific claim. One needs evidence and testible predictions.

Did any of the horses have cattle for children? The big cats, did they birth any alligators? No? Then the animals reproduced after their own kind, yes?
Huh, Creation was right again.

This is bearely worth a response, as you should know evolution doesn't claim changes of that magnitude.

A kind is the smallest group of creatures that can be described with a single word. Reptiles can be broken down into snakes and tortoises. Snakes can be subdivided into vipers and constrictors. Vipers can be broken down into cobras and rattlesnakes and mambas and asps. Cobra is about as far down as one word can go, so Cobra is a kind. Under it you have king cobras spitting cobras, etc.

So I take it a Chihuahua is a kind?

Drama queen. FYI, "all astronomical theories" do/can predict, especially astrophysics. The positions, trajectories, and interactions of heavenly bodies are as predictable as a Swiss clock. Your hyperbole is no substitute for the truth.

Even Big Bang Theory?

And how does that apply to our situation?

It shows that stars cool and increase luminosity as they age, as I allege as a side defense to your attack on abiogenesis with UV radiation.

It is not my belief, it is evolution’s. I believe that species and genera are artificial categorizations designed to create an artificial ‘barrier’ where one can say: “Here endeth the long-eared fruit bats, here beginneth the medium-eared fruit bats”, or some equally silly ‘differentiation’ so one can make up a new species.

Funny, because evolutionists didn't come up with taxonomy.

 

[Perfection]

I guarantee you an astrophysicist can predict with 100% certainty exactly where Jupiter will be in fifteen days. He can predict with 99.999% certainty where it will be in 15,000 years.

Well something you must also consider is complexity. Evolution combines numerous events. Mutations, environment, and biochemistry are not simple numbers one can put into an equation. However they can predict some things about the future, like those groups that have a higher rate of differential reproductive success will outpace those with lower.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm done with this thread

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm done with this thread

 

[Perfection]

And how is that a useful prediction, when it's not even worth mentioning it's so obvious?

It serves an important role in epidemiological studies. Of course, the bulk of evolution's predictive power, as other historical sciences lies in the prediction of "finds", as talked about in my list from the first page.

 

[carlosMM]

Did any of the horses have cattle for children? The big cats, did they birth any alligators? No? Then the animals reproduced after their own kind, yes?
Huh, Creation was right again.

A kind is the smallest group of creatures that can be described with a single word. Reptiles can be broken down into snakes and tortoises. Snakes can be subdivided into vipers and constrictors. Vipers can be broken down into cobras and rattlesnakes and mambas and asps. Cobra is about as far down as one word can go, so Cobra is a kind. Under it you have king cobras spitting cobras, etc…

contradictio in adjecto!
'big cats' is not one word!

'one word' is
a) dependend on language - ridiculous anyways
b) is contraditory to the use of binomina - as is normal for all animals in science
c) is inadequate as then the American 'mountain lion' wouldn't be a kind but a sub-'kind' of lion - which it isn't!
d) there's a lot of evidence showing that todays 'cats', or, if you prefer, 'lions' and 'tigers' and 'mountain lions' (dumb dumb two word kind here, tsk tsk) actually stem from very un-cat or un-lion and un-tiger like beings - blows the theory right out of the water
http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Carnivora


and, btw: Fringillidae can be divided into many 'kinds' - http://www.scricciolo.com/classificazione/species2/fringillidae.htm

so you say evolution can turn a sparrow into a finch? and, by the same logic, as this shows:
http://www.fact-index.com/c/co/corvidae.html
a raven cna be turned into a magpie, but not into anything outside Corvidae?
or, outside Passeridae? Passeridae is also 'one word'
hell, 'Aves' is one word
so is 'dinosauria'

hmmm, now I am confused - what IS a kind, then?
is 'dinosauria' a kind?
or 'sparrows'?
or 'ravens'?
or 'Corvidae'?


your nice Anglocentric theory is dead at birth!

Drama queen. FYI, "all astronomical theories" do/can predict, especially astrophysics. The positions, trajectories, and interactions of heavenly bodies are as predictable as a Swiss clock. Your hyperbole is no substitute for the truth.

Nonsense! 'as a Swiss clock'? not nearly!

And how does that apply to our situation?

It shows you didn't know what you were talking about. Slightly discredits your other arguments.

It is not my belief, it is evolution’s. I believe that species and genera are artificial categorizations designed to create an artificial ‘barrier’ where one can say: “Here endeth the long-eared fruit bats, here beginneth the medium-eared fruit bats”, or some equally silly ‘differentiation’ so one can make up a new species.

hu?
another contradictio in adjecto: you define 'kinds' (aka species) as units into which living beings are grouped (by God) and out of which they cannot evole. That is an objectivly existing category.
The ToE says species are a theoretical category used to allow scientists to discuss animals and plants easily. These groups are described on the basis of certain rules, but there is NO exact demarkation (unlike your 'one word' hypothesis, which gives a clear line) between two species if one evolves out of the other. The line is totally arbitrary, and only individuals sufficiently removed from it to be incompatible breeding mates are clearly seperated.

 

[carlosMM]

I guarantee you an astrophysicist can predict with 100% certainty exactly where Jupiter will be in fifteen days.

yep!

He can predict with 99.999% certainty where it will be in 15,000 years.

most certainly not - not without a HUGE margin of error.
and orbits of planets have about 1 billionth of the variables biological life has - so if astronomic predictions are good enough for you, then a 1 day prediction on animals should be good enough.

well, here's one, based on the Toe: tonorrows rats will not be different from todays significantly enough to be noticed by you

 

[carlosMM]

Okay, let's modify that to smallest group of reproductively isolated creatures that can be described with a single word. Cobras can't interbreed that I am aware of, so they are still a kind. Chihuahuas can interbreed with daschunds, so neither is a kind, but dogs can't breed with non-dogs, so dogs are a kind. Happy?

nice, there you throw your 'one word' thingy out the window - didn#t take you long, hu?
and where do you end up with: breeding communities. Hm, not really what the bible talks about

btw, you example is off: dogs can interbreed with wolves HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

so where do we get: we get to exactly the stance that serious science has taken!
Evolution 1, FL2 0!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm done with this thread

 

[carlosMM]

Wow, I must have really touched a nerve. I haven't seen you this angry in a while...

angry?

I am actually laughing so hard I have tears streaming down my cheeks!

First off, I can't search for the last time I defined 'kind', so I can't use that, and had to do it on the fly, as it were.

your last definition was no better![/quote] Under those conditions, one might expect that it could take a little refining. I had about fifteen minutes, and y'all had 200 years, and now I find that you're trying to trap me in something your side didn't even have the courage to do itself.[/quote]what?

there is an excellent definition of species, applicable to all sexually reproducing organisms, and it has been around for, oh, 200 years?

It is nice to see that you seem to think you are a hero here, breaching a barrier of mental blockade and stupidity. In fact, you are ignorant of the matter.

courage? I recommend you see a psycho doc - there's no courage in logical thinking and science, if you see any courage there you have a martyr syndrom.

Second, the 'big cats' phrase came BEFORE the definition of kind. I would consider 'big cats' to be a larger category than kind. lions, tigers, and panthers would all be seperate kinds.

so please address the mountian lion.

That brings me to a third point: rather than assuming you know what I'm going to say next, saying it for me (and badly at that), and then picking it apart; why don't you let me argue my side, and you take care of your own, okay?

I was referring to what you said. transferring statements to comparable circumstances is a basic scientific principle - like the reproducability of lab tests.

The Bible doesn't talk about breeding communities because 'how' is not as important as 'why' to its message, something YOU seem to have trouble grasping. You insist on having a how, so I'm trying to humor you.

aha, now you say because creationism is incapable of explaining the 'how' it is not important?

And I know you know I consider wolves to be dogs, so I'm curious as to where this bizarre crowing about them making me wrong is coming from.

hm, YOU defined DOG as a one word kind, WOLF is NOT a dog (it is the other way round, remember?), so pelase get your facts straight!

Are you getting that desperate to shut me up? Am I making you that uncomfortable?

nope, I just love to lead you on until you contradict yourself or make another claim that humors our entire lab for days
I love to read you spouting nonsense - you just prove my point that people believing in creation are either mentally insane or plain ingnorant. And I love to see them wriggle when pinned down


So come on, your biblical kind - how does it in any way fit scientific evidence? Fossils? DNA analyses? Bactieral genetic engineering?

Oh, and NOW I remember what idiotic claim it was you broguht forth. not earths age, but the biblical flood and Noah's arc, right?
THAT was the one I demanded you bring ANY proive for, whcih lead to you fleeing the thread.

Taking a step up, let's discuss predictive power. Perfection, the fact that someone can pretend to predict that a particular fossil that hasn't been found yet will be is not a prediction, it's an ante facto observation.

SO basically, now you say that all fossils predictable are there to be found? Otherwise it would not be ante facto.
Weird, the fossils the ToE predicts tend to be found - ones that are impossible tend not to show up.
hmmmmm

It is the exact same thing as 'predicting' that a jigsaw puzzle will not be finished until the piece in your hand is put in place.

nope, you are lying, as you know that it is an entirely different prediction.
e.g.: I can predict that more fossils bridging your supposed 'kind' barrier between wolf-like land animals and whales will be found. This it totally differnt from the jigsaw thingy, because with the jigsaw we have intrinsic knowledge of the final result.

it would be similar if you were handed 1 million jigsaw pieces of unbknown puzzles, which may or may not conatin 1 complete 100 part puzzle. THEN, predictiong after seeing 10 pieces whether any of the ten belongs to a complete one would be comparable.

carlosmm, what is useful about the prediction you just made? The position of Jupiter in fifteen years might be used to aim a probe. What can I use your 'prediction' about rats for that I can't use current knowledge just as well for?

did Im ever talk about use? Again, we are at the point where you go to 'commercially viable' as I sarcastically expressed it - it is besides the point and you are just trying to sidetrack the discussion.
Fact is that the ToE can predict a far more complex matter BETTER than astonomers can predict orbits.

The ToE is not a theory, it's a series of explanations of observations.

hu?
now you do not know what a theory is, and you do not know what the ToE is.

Could you please show you know what you are talking about and sum up in one shoprt post the main points of the synthetic theory of evolution? If you cannot I must say you are too uneducated to even bother with. You are then talkiung abotu things that simply are beyond your horizon.

It has no more predictive power than a weatherman who sticks his head out the window to make his report.

oh, so an experienced weatherman has a lot of predictive power - which is quite true. i happen to have two in the building, they cna predict the weather for the next 24 hours with a few glances out the window quite well, thank you!

[quote}I'll withdraw my comments about the sun. While a young proto-star burns hotter, it appears that older, cooler stars radiate more energy as light and heat.[/QUOTE]ah, finally!

 

[Perfection]

@CarlosMM, I think I better change the title to "The Official CarlosMM and Perfection KO Creationism Thread!"

First off, I can't search for the last time I defined 'kind', so I can't use that, and had to do it on the fly, as it were. Under those conditions, one might expect that it could take a little refining. I had about fifteen minutes, and y'all had 200 years, and now I find that you're trying to trap me in something your side didn't even have the courage to do itself.

Well maybe if you actually remembered something so crucial to your arguements they'd come off better. Anyways we weren't forcing you to answer right away, you could research for hours and then post.

Second, the 'big cats' phrase came BEFORE the definition of kind. I would consider 'big cats' to be a larger category than kind. lions, tigers, and panthers would all be seperate kinds.

But thedefinition of kind is only about a day old.

The Bible doesn't talk about breeding communities because 'how' is not as important as 'why' to its message, something YOU seem to have trouble grasping. You insist on having a how, so I'm trying to humor you.

Well if how is not important then why can't it be evolution.

Taking a step up, let's discuss predictive power. Perfection, the fact that someone can pretend to predict that a particular fossil that hasn't been found yet will be is not a prediction, it's an ante facto observation. It is the exact same thing as 'predicting' that a jigsaw puzzle will not be finished until the piece in your hand is put in place.

Actually it's still a prediction, not a fullfilled one. Howeverwe have seen many of the fossils as we predicted we would so your arguement doesn't work.

carlosmm, what is useful about the prediction you just made? The position of Jupiter in fifteen years might be used to aim a probe. What can I use your 'prediction' about rats for that I can't use current knowledge just as well for?

Commercial use is not the arbitor of what is scientific.

The ToE is not a theory, it's a series of explanations of observations. It has no more predictive power than a weatherman who sticks his head out the window to make his report.

Nope, it's a theory that made a lot of predictions that were confirmed

I'll withdraw my comments about the sun. While a young proto-star burns hotter, it appears that older, cooler stars radiate more energy as light and heat.

[dance]

 

[carlosMM]

I just rememberred your last try at a definition of 'kind', FearlessLeader2. It ran like this:

A kind is something anybody anywhere in the world cna draw a picture of when told the name.

This shows that you have NOT, contrary to scientists and the informed people debating here, THOUGHT and INFORMED yourself about the matter. You have a vague idea and make up definitions and claims as you go. Shame on you!