The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[carlosMM]

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....

quite a poor comparison, and you should b now know that. But it is useles debating you - you have several times been shown beneficial mutations occur and still claim they don't

Or lets say that there are benefitial mutations.....

now we are getting somewhere

as u know ( and I hope u wont deny it ) most of them are not benefitial.

indeed. many are harmful, most are harmles, but not aiding either.

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?.

you are always harping about examples that include an intellgent planning. I am not favoring intellgent design, but you are doping a pretty good job of ridiculing it.


If you fall out of a tenth floor window and survive - will you kill yourself because you shouldn't have survived?

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

I'd like a few sources of that.
Oh, didn't you post one a while back that gave single-base mutations rates and showed earth would have to be 200 billion years old for man to evolve? Didn't I rip that one to shreds by showing they emitted all OTHER means of mutation which would cut the numebr signifiacntly? Didn't you disappear from that thread just after that post?

 

[carlosMM]

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.

yes, by chance. and no, perfection does NOT give NS any intelligence. Just innumerable tries.

 

[carlosMM]

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

wasn't it you claiming God is infallible?

and even if I follow your arguement - then God is doing a pretty lousy job

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.

eh, care to define evolution again?

 

[ybbor]

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.

whoa whoa whoa!!! of course finches and mothes prove beyond a dought that variation exists, but that in no way means that te variation was achoeved in the way you say it was.

99,9% of creationists claim variation doesn't exist or selction doesn't happen.

hey!!!! stop right there! that is not true, and you have no evidence for that, did you take a survey for that? first you have to define variation for me to be able to understand what your trying to communicate. if by variation you mean "difference between animals" then no one on earth would propose there is no variation between say, a fish and a monkey, but if you mean that variation as in "the changing/evolving of a species to create a new one" (which is more under the word evolution than under variation) then you may be right. i politely ask to please define "variation" (in th context it's used here) clearer. and of course selection happens, look at the do-do! no thinking person would argue against that

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.

no there was no change in the soecies, there was a change in the proportion of two different kinds of animals, but not any kind of animal bieng changed or created

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.

the record gap works against it. all of the sudden we have the emergance of multi-sell organisms with specialized cells, and organs from colonies of sngle cell organisms. there was all of a sudden a huge appearence of organisms, organized around some 50 different body types, with diggestive, locomotive, sensory guidance, defense, shells, etc. nearly all animal phyla appeared in less than 1% the history of the earth, and darwinism has no plausable theory to deal with this "biological big bang"

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

no it doesn't, the intelligent designer just saw fit for those species to longer be on this earth

 

[carlosMM]

I recently bougth some legos...

go play ith them

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

can you build somethign ELSE but the PLANNED lego design with them? Can you recombine the pieces and make them into something new?

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

indeed - which is what the ToE predicts.

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?.

there is no blank space.

 

[carlosMM]

Ok well I ment there are to many big gaps.

funny, first you say there are NO transitionals, then it is too few - ONE SINGLE transitional is enough to kick your theory out the window. WE have thousands. Millions, actually.

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...

becasue you do not understand evolution. Sorry, but until you can give a clear definition on how the ToE says small genetic change (single base mutations and gene duplication, e.g.) can result in massive changes (e.g. speciation) I will not bother to discuss the time needed for it with you.

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.

hm, what you descirbe, coexistence of 'parent' spceies with newly evolved more specialized species , is predictable through the ToE. And I have seen a NUMBER of slow changes in the John Day Fossil beds - roughly same age.....

but, essentially, you must just go and define the minimum alteration between one species and another as insufficent to be transitional :rollleyes:

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.

landlocked Dinosaurs living today in an extremly remote location with special adaptations are well within the ToE. Just not within our knowledge of the plante's surface.
dinosaurs with the capability of flight - I see them every day

 

[Saga of Gemini]

go play ith them

They are not for playing I collect them

can you build somethign ELSE but the PLANNED lego design with them? Can you recombine the pieces and make them into something new?

yes I can

indeed - which is what the ToE predicts.

nope it would have predicted that the apendix would have been substitude for something more usefull thruogth ramdom mutations....I dont see that happened...we just dont use it anymore. The fact taht I dont belive in evolution dosnt mean I dont believe in adapation...unless getting tanned ts a proof of evolution....i dont see how the apendix is relevant to proof evolution.

there is no blank space.

huh? what are u reffering to?

 

[carlosMM]

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?

no, the hind legs are totally controled and kept in place by muscles. They have no connection whatsoever to the hips. Some whales (I lack the English name for them) have totally LOST the hip bones. As for biting - if you bite through half of the body you will hit the hips - by that time the whale has bled to death.

 

[ybbor]

go play ith them

hey, personal attacks is not what we're here for, we need to keep this discussion civil.

can you build somethign ELSE but the PLANNED lego design with them? Can you recombine the pieces and make them into something new?

yes, using my brain. however, if i put them i just jumble them around blindly not trying to anything at all, i will most likely end up with junk, let's say i then place that peice pf junk in a room with a 3 year-old (i.e. the cruelty of nature ) i come back an hour later, i then see my piece of junk has been splatered across the floor, creating lots of little pieces of junk

there is no blank space.

really? so every single transitional fossil ever has been recovered? every fossil we have completes a 100% no gap, transition between each and every generation?

 

[carlosMM]

yes I can

see? a seemingly useles extra gene MAY be useful if outside circumstances change.

nope it would have predicted that the apendix would have been substitude for something more usefull thruogth ramdom mutations....

hu?

the ToE predicts that mutation maing the appendix useles are not hamful if the appendix serves no prupose. THus, they will not be selected against. thus they will spread in the population.
At the same time, a smaller appendix saves energy (less growth of it). this is an advantage.

I dont see that happened...we just dont use it anymore.

not true - we CANNOT use it anymore., It is defunct!

The fact taht I dont belive in evolution dosnt mean I dont believe in adapation...unless getting tanned ts a proof of evolution....i dont see how the apendix is relevant to proof evolution.

getting tanned is NOT an adaptation!

You know less about evoltion than a 5th grader. Please, I have said it before, and you have reacted insulted, but it is true: You will need to read a good basic grammar school to high school level book on evolution. may I recommend again: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805366245/103-5326397-8667026?v=glance

huh? what are u reffering to?

you claim htere is a blank space in animals, something akin to syour balnk space in the puzzle.

There isn't in nature.

 

[carlosMM]

hey, personal attacks is not what we're here for, we need to keep this discussion civil.

heil mister moderator.

yes, using my brain. however, if i put them i just jumble them around blindly not trying to anything at all, i will most likely end up with junk, let's say i then place that peice pf junk in a room with a 3 year-old (i.e. the cruelty of nature ) i come back an hour later, i then see my piece of junk has been splatered across the floor, creating lots of little pieces of junk

all comparisons fail if taken to extremes. You know that, so don't be ridiculous.

really? so every single transitional fossil ever has been recovered? every fossil we have completes a 100% no gap, transition between each and every generation?

no, I never claimed that. YOu are rather impolite twisting my words like this.
must I bother to explain to you what I meant or will you be smart enough to read Saga's nonsensical comparison again and take my answer from last post?

 

[carlosMM]

whoa whoa whoa!!! of course finches and mothes prove beyond a dought that variation exists, but that in no way means that te variation was achoeved in the way you say it was.

hu? I did NOT claim anything in the post you quote on how it achieved!

hey!!!! stop right there! that is not true, and you have no evidence for that, did you take a survey for that? first you have to define variation for me to be able to understand what your trying to communicate. if by variation you mean "difference between animals" then no one on earth would propose there is no variation between say, a fish and a monkey, but if you mean that variation as in "the changing/evolving of a species to create a new one" (which is more under the word evolution than under variation) then you may be right. i politely ask to please define "variation" (in th context it's used here) clearer. and of course selection happens, look at the do-do! no thinking person would argue against that

you my friend, described different varieties of moths - black and white. You my friedn, even gave the subspecies scientific names. You, my firend know very well we are talking about variability i the sense of slightly different genetic material. And you, ym friend, described how at first thw white, then alter the balck, then again the white moths were less likely to be eaten and thus not de-selected.

Don't try to avoid the issue here!

no there was no change in the soecies, there was a change in the proportion of two different kinds of animals, but not any kind of animal bieng changed or created

I never claimed that this happened in THIS case.

the record gap works against it. all of the sudden we have the emergance of multi-sell organisms with specialized cells, and organs from colonies of sngle cell organisms. there was all of a sudden a huge appearence of organisms, organized around some 50 different body types, with diggestive, locomotive, sensory guidance, defense, shells, etc. nearly all animal phyla appeared in less than 1% the history of the earth, and darwinism has no plausable theory to deal with this "biological big bang"

you know nothing about Darwinism then.
The ToE, ans specifically Mayrs SYNTHETIC theory of Evolution, predicts RADICAL changes in the ecosystem and a very diverse radiation whenever a mutation crops up that has a huge impact on the survivability of the progeny. A 'sudden' explosion is actually expected!

no it doesn't, the intelligent designer just saw fit for those species to longer be on this earth

essentially, you are propogin about 5 billion ad hoc hypotheses here

 

[Saga of Gemini]

f- ONE SINGLE transitional is enough to kick your theory out the window. WE have thousands. Millions, actually.

ummm I dont think so.... Ive seen many books and none of them have provided me with any sort of picture of any transitional fossil ( yes even archeopterix, but I wont get in the disscussion of how its a bird and not something else).

ONE SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL is nto enough srry that wont cut it, it may be enough to u because u want to believe in evolution....but certanly not for an skeptical person.

You dont have thousends.Mllions of fossils.

Srry but your word is not any sort of proof. "But Im an expert" u say? well U simply could be lying Ive passed as a phisists in other web pages.

But of course how can we proof that there are no transitional fossils? certanly we cant with a picture rigth'...so I guess quoting is the best we can do. However this action is not accepted by you because we "take it out of context" we "missquote" theres no winning here. You are rigth because you are rigth and thats it....it sickens me...this....our chances being mutilated by this kind of reasoning and thinking....that all that we present here has counter evidence is wrong.

becasue you do not understand evolution. Sorry, but until you can give a clear definition on how the ToE says small genetic change (single base mutations and gene duplication, e.g.) can result in massive changes (e.g. speciation) I will not bother to discuss the time needed for it with you.

No it seems every time one gets the grasp of it then the theory convinnienly change to avoid any kind of critics.
I rest my case with what perfection said about punctuated equillibrium . If u cant give me a clare definiton of how it works why should I trust it actually works? I mean supouse I disproff both theorys ( Darwin and PE ) then what? ( this is not adressed to carlosmm directly but Im speaking to all ppl) Would ToE be discarded? certanly not.Somehow they would change the rules of the game 8 since they are the authority) to say evolution works other ways, They dont need proof they dont need evidence they just need to say it nd it will become the new base for the theory, because like Ive said they are the authority. So my point with this is, even scientists dont understand what u are asking here since the rules of the game are always being changed to acomodate your wishes.

hm, what you descirbe, coexistence of 'parent' spceies with newly evolved more specialized species , is predictable through the ToE. And I have seen a NUMBER of slow changes in the John Day Fossil beds - roughly same age.....

In here I agree with u the fact that a species evolves dosnt mean that the original cant coexist with the newly formed species.

but I have one Q....how long is it that u saw those fossils?....I mean all the thousends and millions of fossils u say youve seen...or how long have u known about them?...just wandering.

but, essentially, you must just go and define the minimum alteration between one species and another as insufficent to be transitional :rollleyes:

I dont understand this? could u further explain?...I mean are u saying that a minimn difference is INsufficient or sufficient...thats what I dont get.

 

[Saga of Gemini]

you know nothing about Darwinism then.
The ToE, ans specifically Mayrs SYNTHETIC theory of Evolution, predicts RADICAL changes in the ecosystem and a very diverse radiation whenever a mutation crops up that has a huge impact on the survivability of the progeny. A 'sudden' explosion is actually expected!

hahaha here u go changing the rules of the game again....We dont understand evolution thats for certain...if every time we get what the theory says then another is conviniengly created to state the total opposite of it to "fullfill" the critics made to it.
Theres no winning here futil,futil,FUTIL thing debating this...I dont know why I dragged myself again to this debates.....well anyway I enjoyed the vacation from it.

 

[carlosMM]

ummm I dont think so.... Ive seen many books and none of them have provided me with any sort of picture of any transitional fossil ( yes even archeopterix, but I wont get in the disscussion of how its a bird and not something else).

ONE SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL is nto enough srry that wont cut it, it may be enough to u because u want to believe in evolution....but certanly not for an skeptical person.

You dont have thousends.Mllions of fossils.

Srry but your word is not any sort of proof. "But Im an expert" u say? well U simply could be lying Ive passed as a phisists in other web pages.

maybe you should care to INFORM youself them. I ahve in the past repeatedly given you directions where to get information.

[quot€]But of course how can we proof that there are no transitional fossils? certanly we cant with a picture rigth'...so I guess quoting is the best we can do. However this action is not accepted by you because we "take it out of context" we "missquote" theres no winning here. You are rigth because you are rigth and thats it....it sickens me...this....our chances being mutilated by this kind of reasoning and thinking....that all that we present here has counter evidence is wrong. [/quote] Saga, you are acting childish, like a little kid who has lost an argument. In all instances where I accused you of misquoting I backed it up by the full quotes - as opposed to you.

No it seems every time one gets the grasp of it then the theory convinnienly change to avoid any kind of critics.

may it be becasue you try to simplf it to the point of being ridiculous?

I rest my case with what perfection said about punctuated equillibrium . If u cant give me a clare definiton of how it works why should I trust it actually works?

eh, perfections explanation was actually pretty good. I take you you simply didn#t understand it becasue you lack the knowledge to.


I am wrong?


prove it!


define: gene, mutation, single base mutation, chromosomal doubling, DNA, tRNA, mRNA, selection, variability, species.

jsut a few to start. HSow me you know wat you are talking about!

I mean supouse I disproff both theorys ( Darwin and PE ) then what? ( this is not adressed to carlosmm directly but Im speaking to all ppl) Would ToE be discarded?

amended or discarded.

certanly not.Somehow they would change the rules of the game 8 since they are the authority) to say evolution works other ways, They dont need proof they dont need evidence they just need to say it nd it will become the new base for the theory, because like Ive said they are the authority. So my point with this is, even scientists dont understand what u are asking here since the rules of the game are always being changed to acomodate your wishes.

so, basically, you are another sad little conspiracy theoretic.

In here I agree with u the fact that a species evolves dosnt mean that the original cant coexist with the newly formed species.

so where was your point?

but I have one Q....how long is it that u saw those fossils?....I mean all the thousends and millions of fossils u say youve seen...or how long have u known about them?...just wandering.

Summer 2000 and summer 2003. I spent all in all 21 weeks in the midwest to see and dig fossils.

Youa re rather impolite doubting a studied paleontologist on this.



I dont understand this? could u further explain?...I mean are u saying that a minimn difference is INsufficient or sufficient...thats what I dont get.[/QUOTE]

 

[carlosMM]

hahaha here u go changing the rules of the game again....We dont understand evolution thats for certain...if every time we get what the theory says then another is conviniengly created to state the total opposite of it to "fullfill" the critics made to it.
Theres no winning here futil,futil,FUTIL thing debating this...I dont know why I dragged myself again to this debates.....well anyway I enjoyed the vacation from it.

funny, you guys come here telling us what we may do and what not, essentially trying to force us to use dogma, then proving that is wrong. Please, go apply that to the church, willya?

You ahve no grasp whatsoever of science. Go learn! Grow up! Go to school!

PLEEEASE!!!!!!!!

 

[Perfection]

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.

No, I'm just saying that natural selection is the mechanism that can turn random mutations into directed progress.

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)

Nope

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?

Perhaps to a minute degree, but surely not enough to justify its existance.

hahaha here u go changing the rules of the game again....We dont understand evolution thats for certain...if every time we get what the theory says then another is conviniengly created to state the total opposite of it to "fullfill" the critics made to it.

This is incorrect it's not the "total opposite" of the previous evolutionary ideas more of an addition and in some cases a correction. A lot of the deeper mechanics of evolution is debated, but the heart of natural selection has remained the same since The Origin of the Speices. You mistake the continued healthy debate of evolutionary mechanics for doubt in evolution.

 

[Phydeaux]

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.

Yes, but it can not be used as evidence for evolution, just because there is Natural selection doesn't mean that every living thing can from a single cell.

You used some thing called it evidence for evolution then after he shows how it's not evolution saying well it's evidence for Natural selection. Who cares if it's evidence for Natural selection? We all know that there is Natural selection. Sorry if that offends you, I was just trying to point out there is no use in using Natural selection as evidence for evolution.

 

[carlosMM]

Yes, but it can not be used as evidence for evolution, just because there is Natural selection doesn't mean that every living thing can from a single cell.

You used some thing called it evidence for evolution then after he shows how it's not evolution saying well it's evidence for Natural selection. Who cares if it's evidence for Natural selection? We all know that there is Natural selection. Sorry if that offends you, I was just trying to point out there is no use in using Natural selection as evidence for evolution.

you see, YOU may know there is natrual selection, and YOU may say so, but we've seen a few die-hard literal-bible-thumper here who deny it.

 

[Phydeaux]

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.

Natural selection and variations are not what creationist are against, what creationist are against is that every living thing on earth evolved from one living thing.

Varieties do not show how every thing could come from one thing. The variations we have seen take place, to the date, can not explain how all living things could have come from one, it only explains how varieties came to be.

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.

I do not know where you got those numbers, but every creationist I know of claim that variation, and natural selection happens. But, they claim that it is more limited than evolutionist once thought it was.

If things change to a new species, and then do not change any more then that is no problem for the creationist. And we have seen so far that they can not change far enough (to do what evolutionist claim) the way they are changing now.