"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

J C wrote: »

Drawing is an artistic endeavour!!!

... so, do you have a link to photos of the fossils that gave rise to the drawings you just posted?

dlofnep wrote: »

Tiktaalik.

... so the drawings aren't based on actual fossils at all!!!

The Mad Hatter

All species are transitional.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

All species are transitional.

... and everything is Evolution!!!!:D:)

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

It might appear that way to an unevolved primate - but to a modern homo sapien, it appears like a transitional fossil.

... because Humans have the greater imagination!!!:)

[-0-]

robindch wrote: »

Agora is worth a look

Dude, that was epic. Thank you!

J C

[-0-] wrote: »

Dude, that was epic. Thank you!

Its just a film ... that tells a story from a particular perspective.

dlofnep

Hey look, it's the evolution of the horse!

Turtwig

dlofnep wrote: »

Hey look, it's the evolution of the horse!

But where is the intermediate step between Eophippus and Oligohippus?

dlofnep

Malty_T wrote: »

But where is the intermediate step between Eophippus and Oligohippus?

The Crocoduck

Wibbs

J C wrote: »

... so what? ... there are many fish that don't have 'normal' heads ... for example flatfish, hammer-head sharks, etc.!!!
... and its fins, at best, only allowed the Tiktaalik to slither along on land ... like a 'Walking Catfish' does today!!!

Christ you really have no clue about animal anatomy do you? When he talks about different heads, he's referring to the skull structures that are different. A flatfish and a salmon have the same basic structures only arranged differently. Much the same way that you and a dog have very different heads on first glance, yet have the same structures underneath. Breeds of dog a better example. An afghan hound with it's long thin face has precisely the same underlying structures as a flat faced boxer. FYI sharks aren't fishes.

There is no continuum of fossils (or living specimens) between fish locomotion structures ... and mammalian structures ... its all in the (artistic) imaginations of some Evolutionists!!!:)

Eh yea, yea there is. One can see the basic(and beyond) underlying structures that were to follow. Indeed one can see some "dead end" structures that came to naught. Ever wonder why you have five digits like other animals? That kicked off back then. If another line had survived you may have had six(and may have if you're from some inbred hillbilly background). Next time you go for a stroll, observe how you swing your arms opposite to your legs? That's a holdover from quadrupedal locomotion. Never mind vestigial structures from your animal past.

If you god doesn't do things by evolution, then how come he left so many clues to show that's precisely what he did? Unless you're one of these medievalists that reckons all these clues are the devil screwing with humanity.

Mr. Boo

Wibbs wrote: »

FYI sharks aren't fishes.

To add another tangent to this discussion......Eh?

Throughout undergraduate education I was lead to believe that the vertebrate class chondrichthyes consisted of jawed fish with cartilagenous skeletons. Please clear this up for me before I continue any further into my postgraduate studies. As a marine ecologist, these fundamentals are still important to me.

Speaking of which, JC, I would love to hear how jesus' pre-programmed information fits into the complex processes involved in the functioning of ecosystems. It would save a hell of a lot of time and money if you could just point us to the approriate parts of the manual that will help us to manage resources in a more divine fashion. It might even lead us to an earthly paradise.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Hey look, it's the evolution of the horse!



The Crocoduck

10 out of 10 for artistic merit ... but a big fat zero for scientific validity!!!

I am idebted to a Creation Science colleague Mats Molén, who has researched the Horse Series.
It is now believed that the horse series comprises at least three different created kinds, not including all animals that have been labeled 'Eohippus'. The 'Eohippus / Oligohippus Hyracotherium' appears to contain several different created kinds such as animals that are similar to tapirs.
Equally, supposedly “Early” horses have been preserved in strata from the same evolutionary age as several “later” horses.
Hyracotherium/Eohippus and Orohippus, for instance, appear in the fossil record at the same time as Epihippus. Mesohippus and Miohippus appear together with Merychippus and Parahippus. Almost all other horses (with a possible exception of one or two)—Parahippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equus and possibly also Miohippus—are represented at the same time during much of the period when they have been found as fossils.

The Horse Series therefore has just about as much scientific validity as that other great artistic creation of Evolutionism ... the Crocoduck!!!:eek::D:)

Mr. Boo

Literary fiction is another well known artistic endeavour. Moralising is a favourite tact of fictional authors.

See also. the bible.

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

Christ you really have no clue about animal anatomy do you? When he talks about different heads, he's referring to the skull structures that are different. A flatfish and a salmon have the same basic structures only arranged differently. Much the same way that you and a dog have very different heads on first glance, yet have the same structures underneath. Breeds of dog a better example. An afghan hound with it's long thin face has precisely the same underlying structures as a flat faced boxer.

... and the Tiktaalik also has the same basic structures 'only arranged differently' ... and 'rotated' through 90 Degrees.

Wibbs wrote: »

FYI sharks aren't fishes.

... and what do you think they are? ... Crocoducks???:eek::)
Of course they are fishes!!!

Quote Wikipedia:-
Sharks (superorder Selachimorpha) are a type of fish with a full cartilaginous skeleton and a highly streamlined body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh yea, yea there is. One can see the basic(and beyond) underlying structures that were to follow. Indeed one can see some "dead end" structures that came to naught. Ever wonder why you have five digits like other animals? That kicked off back then. If another line had survived you may have had six(and may have if you're from some inbred hillbilly background).

... Darwin was a bit of an 'inbreeder' himself ... he married his first cousin!!!

Wibbs wrote: »

Next time you go for a stroll, observe how you swing your arms opposite to your legs? That's a holdover from quadrupedal locomotion. Never mind vestigial structures from your animal past.

... I don't swing my arms all over the place when I walk ... but your arm swinging 'pattern' may be a 'holdover' from when you crawled as a baby ... or perhaps you have never quite become fully bipedal!!!:D:)

Wibbs wrote: »

If you god doesn't do things by evolution, then how come he left so many clues to show that's precisely what he did? Unless you're one of these medievalists that reckons all these clues are the devil screwing with humanity.

What evidence are you referring to?
All of the evidence points to Creation.

Lucifer has bragged that he did it all by Evolution ... but he isn't my God.

Sarky

Before you go any further looking foolish with regard to transitional fossils J C, do you think you could debunk that paper we've been showing you for months?

I only ask because all your responses so far are along the lines of shouting "NO U" without any evidence or logic to demonstrate why you think the paper is wrong. You haven't backed up a single claim with anything even close to evidence, whereas the people challenging your views almost always have plenty of evidence to back their claims. You just keep fobbing us off with rhetoric and misdirection, but you're really bad at it so we keep coming back to it.

It's making you look very stupid. I don't think you realise how stupid your antics make you seem. You never had any credibility to begin with, since you've been lying and hiding from the logic of others for the last five years at least (and doing a terrible job of it. You are hilariously transparent when you lie), but it has been getting really pathetic of late.

So how about you destroy that paper? Come on already. You've had months but you haven't actually been able to debunk one point from it.

Come on. Prove you're not the fraudulent lying coward you're coming across as. It shouldn't be hard, but you haven't managed so far. The linger you wait, the more a lying, cowardly fraud you make yourself out to be.

One little paper. Why haven't you destroyed it yet? If you don't want people to assume you can't do it, you're going to have to pull your finger out and deconstruct the paper piece by piece, with rigorous mathematics and non-circular logic.

Personally, I don't think you can do it because you haven't managed to destroy a single post on this thread, ever. You are, of course, welcome to prove me wrong. You can start now, if you like.

The Mad Hatter

New article on the Guardian's website, makes short work of some creationist objections to evolution.

The problems he lists, with their solutions below, are:

Q1 How come something came from nothing?
A1 This is interesting, but nothing to do with evolution, which is an account of how some things came from preceding things.

Q2 How to generate life from non-life?
A2 We're finding that out; and the essential point, which has been clear since the 19th century, is that life is simply a particular arrangement of non-living molecules. It's not made from qualitatively different stuff.

Q3 How to create intelligence from non-intelligence?
A3 It's true that we find it easier to create stupidity. But given the extraordinary variety of intelligences on earth, it's clear that you can progress from simple forms to more complicated ones given enough time. And we have had enough time. It's one of the main difficulties when you're trying to grasp the fact of evolution that the time involved is so immense.

Q4 Where did information come from?
A4 This is an interesting question. But it has nothing to do with proving or disproving the facts of evolution.

Q5 How can you have 'design' without a designer?
A5 By not being confused by language: you get design without a designer the same way the wind blows without a blower.

Q6 How can you have an effect without a cause?
A6 I don't know how, but that you have them in uncountable numbers seems perfectly clear at the quantum level. Completely random events do occur and we have to wrap our minds round this fact. In any case, the theory of evolution is all about the effects of particular causes, so this doesn't really come into it.

Q7 How can you overcome the second law of thermodynamics?
A7 You can't. But it doesn't apply to open systems, like life.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

New article on the Guardian's website, makes short work of some creationist objections to evolution.


The problems he lists, with their solutions below, are:

Q1 How come something came from nothing?
A1 This is interesting, but nothing to do with evolution, which is an account of how some things came from preceding things.
No answer given to the question.
Creation deals with the production of both the Universe and life - The Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution claims to do the same ... but here we find no answer to the fundamental question of how nothing could blow up to produce everything ... in any kind of 'bang' ... big or otherwise!!!.

Q2 How to generate life from non-life?
A2 We're finding that out; and the essential point, which has been clear since the 19th century, is that life is simply a particular arrangement of non-living molecules. It's not made from qualitatively different stuff.
Living Human Beings are more than "a particular arrangement of non-living molecules" ... even though Atheists would like to thing this ... Humans also have an eternal spirit.
In any event, life physically is a very particular i.e. highly specific arrangement of molecules ... that produce Complex Functional Specific Designs ... that can only be produced by an ultimate application of intelligence .... and we have found this out in the latter half of the 20th Century.
The above answer is the equivalent of claiming that a jumbo jet is "simply a particular arrangement of molecules" ... it begs the question as to who created the 'particular arrangement of molecules' ... and, in the case of the jet, they were intelligent aeronautical engineers.
... and in the case of life, the appliance of intelligence is an equal requirement for the creation of its CFSI.

Q3 How to create intelligence from non-intelligence?
A3 It's true that we find it easier to create stupidity. But given the extraordinary variety of intelligences on earth, it's clear that you can progress from simple forms to more complicated ones given enough time. And we have had enough time. It's one of the main difficulties when you're trying to grasp the fact of evolution that the time involved is so immense.
Rubbish in ... rubbish out, holds true for all non-intelligently devised systems, and CFSI, irrespective of the timescale.
Highly selected 'gobbledygook' information also remains 'gobbledygook' ... or degenerates further, with the passage of time.
... and the fact that we have an 'extraordinary variety of intelligences on earth' doesn't explain how their CFSI ultimately originated.

Q4 Where did information come from?
A4 This is an interesting question. But it has nothing to do with proving or disproving the facts of evolution.
No answer given to THE fundamental question about life ... but not surprising, given the fact that spontaneous evolution cannot account for the CFSI that is found in life.

Q5 How can you have 'design' without a designer?
A5 By not being confused by language: you get design without a designer the same way the wind blows without a blower.
The wind may indeed blow without a blower, because neither its cause nor its result relies on its sprecificity nor functionality ... however, life simply wouldn't exist if the specific functional processes that produces and sustains it didn't exist ... and, unlike wind, the specific functional designs found in life do require a designer.

Q6 How can you have an effect without a cause?
A6 I don't know how, but that you have them in uncountable numbers seems perfectly clear at the quantum level. Completely random events do occur and we have to wrap our minds round this fact. In any case, the theory of evolution is all about the effects of particular causes, so this doesn't really come into it.
You cannot have a physical effect without a cause ... its one of the 'pillars' of scientific investigation ... and this means that all physical effects must logiclly have an ultimate cause. Living systems are observed to have particular and specific effects ... and therefore random or deterministic processes, like spontaneous evolution, cannot account for their existence ... or their ultimate cause.
Living processes operate at the macro/molecular levels ... and thus they cannot be explained by unfounded appeals to quantum mechanics

Q7 How can you overcome the second law of thermodynamics?
A7 You can't. But it doesn't apply to open systems, like life.
The Second Law applies to both 'open' and 'closed' systems ... and whether the energy is locally or remotely produced ... it must be harnessed by an intelligently designed system, if it is to reduce entropy locally.
Entropy will always increase when energy is dissipated in the absence of an intelligently designed system that is capable of capturing and utilising it.

.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

.
The Second Law applies to both 'open' and 'closed' systems

Lol. No it doesn't.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Lol. No it doesn't.

Oh yes it does.
Energy produced by the Sun results in an increase in entropy in the sun ... but, in the absence of an intelligently designed system (like photosynthesis or a photo-electric panel), solar energy will increase entropy locally on earth as well as by causing sunburn or the degeneration of the surfaces exposed to it ... or by its destructive dissipation via storms, etc.

housetypeb

J C wrote: »

...

Lucifer has bragged that he did it all by Evolution ... but he isn't my God.

Can you show any links to where he bragged about Evolution?

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

Can you show any links to where he bragged about Evolution?

I'd prefer not to.
Conceding this point is preferable to involving un-Saved thread observers in the details of Luciferianism!!!

Mr. Boo

That would all be very inciteful if we hadn't already shown that CSI-jesus is a load of hooey.

You are the broken clock which is not even right twice a day. Emptily repeating the same old guff and awaiting our chin-rubbing gratitude and respect.

If a god created you, he must really have had nothing to do but bask in his own vanity. I would hope the god who created him would then promptly shake the etch-a-sketch and start over.

Mr. Boo

Jumbo jets are like people: airborne and full of jetfuel and human waste.

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

That would all be very inciteful if we hadn't already shown that CSI-jesus is a load of hooey.

You are the broken clock which is not even right twice a day. Emptily repeating the same old guff and awaiting our chin-rubbing gratitude and respect.

If a god created you, he must really have had nothing to do but bask in his own vanity. I would hope the god who created him would then promptly shake the etch-a-sketch and start over.

There is no 'shaking of the etch-a-sketch' ... once conceived, it is appointed unto man to die once ... and then the judgement.

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Jumbo jets are like people: airborne and full of jetfuel and human waste.

... the only thing that jets and living organisms share is the fact of their complex functional specificity ... which indicates their intelligent design.

Mr. Boo

I'm speculating on who creates the creator. You should be thoroughly familiar with speculation. It is where one connects dots, and accepts it as a decent explaination when they've no right to. If I had some evidence of a creator, nevermind evidence of the creator's creator then maybe I could formulate a hypothesis and try to disprove it using empirical evidence. But I don't have any of that! You're right....sorry JC.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

... the only thing that jets and living organisms share is the fact of their complex functional specificity ... which indicates their intelligent design.

No offence, but if I was intelligently designing my own organism. I wouldn't put the poop-chute right next to the sex-zone. So to speak.

Don't get me started on the CPU programming.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Oh yes it does.
Energy produced by the Sun results in an increase in entropy in the sun ... but, in the absence of an intelligently designed system (like photosynthesis or a photo-electric panel), solar energy will increase entropy locally on earth as well as by causing sunburn or the degeneration of the surfaces exposed to it ... or by its destructive dissipation via storms, etc.

No, the second law of thermodynamics begins with "For a closed system..."

Gee, JC, it almost looks like you're talking out of your ass....

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

No offence, but if I was intelligently designing my own organism. I wouldn't put the poop-chute right next to the sex-zone. So to speak.

Don't get me started on the CPU programming.

... and where would you put the 'poop-chute'? .... next door to the mouth-zone???:D:)

J C

King Mob wrote: »

No, the second law of thermodynamics begins with "For a closed system..."

Gee, JC, it almost looks like you're talking out of your ass....

All systems are ultimately closed ... depending on how you define them.