"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Wibbs

J C wrote: »

Practically all fossils are preserved in sedimentary or metamorphic rocks ... that both have their origins in the precipitation of sediment in water.

Nope. Most sedimentary rock is laid down in water, but not "practically all" or anything like it. Irish people can go down to Kerry and Cork and see mountains made from old red sandstone. That sandstone - and the clue is in the title - was laid down in a desert environment and the majority consists of fossilised sand dunes. Fossils can be preserved in peat deposits, which although in the presence of water, requires no flooding or "catastrophe". Indeed flooding type deposits usually tumble up the fossils. BTW Metamorphic rock can start off as igneous rock.

... and as the rock layers are 'dated' by the fossils found in them ... it is a circular argument to then 'date' the fossils by the rocks they are found in. In actual fact the rock layers are a record of the burial sequence in Noah's Flood ... with 'bottom dwelling' low mobility sea creatues buried first ... other water dwelling creatures next ... land plants next ... low mobility land animals next and 'higher' land animals last.

You really couldn't make this up. Oh wait... someone did. Some Bronze age goat herder plagurising Babylonian texts did.

OK lets break out the crayons and join the dots. Noah's flood. Real simple question here. How come the highest level extinctions happened in the sea? If the seas had dried up you would expect that alright, but according to your science it was a flood. You raise the seas to above the tallest mountain and all the fishes and whales and sharks and plesiosaurs and ammonites and all the others would be saying "yippeeee! Praise the lord!". So how do you drown a fish or a shark with a flood?

Again I'd ask you what about previous humans? What about Erectus and Neandertalis? It seems both had some level of seafaring. How come they drowned. Hell how come they were around in the first place? They weren't modern humans(though I'd personally call them human). When your flood kicked off what about fishermen in boats already? What about the cultures of south east Asia that actually live on boats and have done since the Bronze age?

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh not quite. These so called living fossils have changed over time. They're still recognisable as those animals, but they ain't the same. In any event so what if some life doesn't change much? If they have a niche in the ecosystem that doesn't vary over time, why change? There's no pressure to do so. Very few if any "living fossils" remain the same.

Many are exactly like they were supposedly hundreds of millions of Evolutionist 'years' ago!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzt6zsmH2No&feature=related
The Woolemi Pine is exactly the same as the fossil ones found alongside the Dinosaurs

Wibbs wrote: »

The Gingko, one of the best examples, has changed in leaf layout and size in the 100's of millions of years it's been around. It's also got a huge DNA strand, that it's picked up over that time.

... a bit of a useless DNA strand ... and a variety of leaf shape ... is all that 'evolved' ... whilst mankind was supposed to be 'evolving' from something that loked like a glorified rat ... special pleading gone mad!!!:)

Wibbs wrote: »

Complete and utter nonsense. You can't state anything approaching that "scientifically". In a very broad sense there are two types of fossil assemblages. Life assemblages and death assemblages. The former are rapid burial(though in the case of sedentary life, not always). The latter are fossils laid down over time, not rapid burial. They can show scavenger action and even weathering.

Everything that is fossilised had to be rapidly buried ... instantly, where soft tissue is fossilised ... and days/weeks at a maximum where skeletons are concerned ... as longer periods 'overground' would result in their being eaten by scavangers.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh and the death assemblage is the more common. How would that work in Noah's flood? Answer, it wouldn't.

Answer, it does.
Could I gently remind you that Noah's Food was the greatest death-causing catastrophy in the history of the world.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh and BTW fossils don't have to be found in water borne sediment. Many are found in desert sediments where wind and sand have covered them. Again no water or Noah required.

... skeletons may be found preserved under sand by dehydration ... but these aren't fossils as they aren't petrified.

Wibbs wrote: »

Another issue with your Biblical "scienticians" and their flood is why do marine animals die out in this flood? More marine life than land life has gone extinct in the history of the earth. You'd think a flood would be like catnip to them...

... the fountains of the great deep largely broke trough on the ocean floors ... although some also broke through on land. All marine creatures that were closest to these enormous eruptions of water, calcium carbonate and silicate sediment were buried.

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually it has. Soft tissues evolve faster than bony tissue. Our palate has changed over the last 100,000 years(likely to do with the evolution of speech). Earlier humans had larger palates. Modern humans are selecting for smaller teeth and palates. Some moderns just show some earlier features. EG I've got an extra lower vertebra. The majority don't, but earlier hominids did, so I'm a bit of a throwback .

... all part of the created genetic diversity complement within Humanity???:eek::)

Wibbs wrote: »

It's also thought to be down to lifestyle. Humans on "natural" hunter gatherer diets don't suffer to near the same extent with dental overcrowding and have better developed palates.

Could be elements of Natural/Sexual Selection (of pre-existing CFSI genetic diversity) involved there.

Wibbs wrote: »

BTW what about my question regarding early humans? Where do they fit in with your biblical science?

What was your question about 'early humans'?

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope. Most sedimentary rock is laid down in water, but not "practically all" or anything like it. Irish people can go down to Kerry and Cork and see mountains made from old red sandstone. That sandstone - and the clue is in the title - was laid down in a desert environment and the majority consists of fossilised sand dunes. Fossils can be preserved in peat deposits, which although in the presence of water, requires no flooding or "catastrophe". Indeed flooding type deposits usually tumble up the fossils.

The sand in sandstone may have come from desert-like areas or from the sorting of sediment released by the fountains of the great deep and other tectonic processes ... but the sandstone, itself was always formed by aquatic processes that allowed cementing of the sand grains by the precipitation of water-saturated minerals within the pore spaces. The reason that there is still so much 'loose sand' on beaches and in deserts and eskers is because calcium carbonate wasn't universally available within water to faciltate lithification ... and thus it never became stone ... but remained sand

Wibbs wrote: »

BTW Metamorphic rock can start off as igneous rock.

I agree ... but these aren't fossiliferous.

Wibbs wrote: »

You really couldn't make this up. Oh wait... someone did. Some Bronze age goat herder plagurising Babylonian texts did.

... the Babylonians ... and the people groups, who dispersed from Babel, knew about the Flood ... and still have accounts of it within their cultures ... but the definitive version is the Biblical account.

Wibbs wrote: »

OK lets break out the crayons and join the dots. Noah's flood. Real simple question here. How come the highest level extinctions happened in the sea? If the seas had dried up you would expect that alright, but according to your science it was a flood. You raise the seas to above the tallest mountain and all the fishes and whales and sharks and plesiosaurs and ammonites and all the others would be saying "yippeeee! Praise the lord!". So how do you drown a fish or a shark with a flood?

... answered this question in my prevous post (proximity to the fountains of the great deep and other catastrophic tectonic processes within the oceans buried these creatures on the ocean floor).

Wibbs wrote: »

Again I'd ask you what about previous humans? What about Erectus and Neandertalis? It seems both had some level of seafaring. How come they drowned. Hell how come they were around in the first place? They weren't modern humans(though I'd personally call them human).
When your flood kicked off what about fishermen in boats already? What about the cultures of south east Asia that actually live on boats and have done since the Bronze age?

It seems that the ante-diluvians didn't engage in seafaring on any significant scale ... possibly because there was only one landmass before the flood.
People were also vegetarians before the Flood ... so fishing (and fishermen and boat-people) only existed after the Flood.
Genesis 9:3 records the moment when God allowed Man to become an omnivore.

Genesis 9:3
King James Version (KJV)

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Mr. Boo

Surely 'every living thing shall be food for you' would have been more appropriate. As the word meat would presumably have been meaningless to these extremely unimaginative pre-mini-apocalyptic vegans?

Dentition?

Why bother...

Wibbs

J C wrote: »

Many are exactly like they were supposedly hundreds of millions of Evolutionist 'years' ago!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzt6zsmH2No&feature=related
The Woolemi Pine is exactly the same as the fossil ones found alongside the Dinosaurs

Nope I'm afraid they're not. They have evolved over time, in the sense that mutations have sprung up that have left their mark in their DNA. These mutations don't always show in morphology.

... a bit of a useless DNA strand ... and a variety of leaf shape ... is all that 'evolved' ... whilst mankind was supposed to be 'evolving' from something that loked like a glorified rat ... special pleading gone mad!!!:)

Eh you're hardly comparing like with like.

Everything that is fossilised had to be rapidly buried ... instantly, where soft tissue is fossilised ... and days/weeks at a maximum where skeletons are concerned ... as longer periods 'overground' would result in their being eaten by scavangers.

No, you're simply and incredibly wrong and ignorant of the facts of fossilisation. Fossilisation occurs at different rates and processes. In any event, lets imagine your simplistic take is correct, how come dinosaur fossils are found in bone beds which took and I quote you here weeks to form? No instant flood there Ted.

Answer, it does.
Could I gently remind you that Noah's Food was the greatest death-causing catastrophy in the history of the world.

According to your book cobbled together from (very)local worldview and nicked from earlier campfire stories. Hey I happen to believe the story of the flood in those parts likely had some truth in history. The flooding of coastal lands post ice age, or the Black sea filling in. But it's got feck all to do with god or science or even simple observation that anyone can do. And again you don't seem to understand the diffs between life and death assemblages. And that's just a very simplistic definition and distinction.

... skeletons may be found preserved under sand by dehydration ... but these aren't fossils as they aren't petrified.

You really have no clue about this stuff. Where ignorance of basic processes occurs, understandable mistakes are made. Petrified = turned to stone. Not all fossils are "petrified". Indeed they've even found intact protein strands in dinosaur bones.

... the fountains of the great deep largely broke trough on the ocean floors ... although some also broke through on land. All marine creatures that were closest to these enormous eruptions of water, calcium carbonate and silicate sediment were buried.

Right, yet marine reptiles who inhabited the top layers of the water also succumbed, yet Crinoids, many species of fish and other deep dwelling animals didn't die out? Sorry, try again.

... all part of the created genetic diversity complement within Humanity???:eek::)

Nope. I don't have brow ridges, nor twice the modern skull bone density and thickness and I possess a chin.

What was your question about 'early humans'?

How do you explain them?

The sand in sandstone may have come from desert-like areas or from the sorting of sediment released by the fountains of the great deep and other tectonic processes ... but the sandstone, itself was always formed by aquatic processes that allowed cementing of the sand grains by the precipitation of water-saturated minerals within the pore spaces. The reason that there is still so much 'loose sand' on beaches and in deserts and eskers is because calcium carbonate wasn't universally available within water to faciltate lithification ... and thus it never became stone ... but remained sand

You better tell that to geologists out there who examine desert sandstones then.

I agree ... but these aren't fossiliferous.

They can be. Ever hear of Pompeii? Volcanic ash and guess what? No water required. There's yet another one not requiring your great flood. Oh here's another and I'd love to see you explain this one... Tar pits. Tar pits containing fossils of long extinct animals.

... the Babylonians ... and the people groups, who dispersed from Babel, knew about the Flood ... and still have accounts of it within their cultures ... but the definitive version is the Biblical account.

Yea. The definitive version. :rolleyes: The one most well known today, but hardly definitive. It was a complete copy of earlier ones. Earlier ones BTW that are the same story, but rooted in more logic in that they describe a local if catastrophic flood. Not some worldwide thing. The noah one is local too. Very. The world thing comes later as the religion spreads.

... answered this question in my prevous post (proximity to the fountains of the great deep and other catastrophic tectonic processes within the oceans buried these creatures on the ocean floor).

Hardly. Not given the lack of correlation between what went extinct and didn't in your theory

It seems that the ante-diluvians didn't engage in seafaring on any significant scale ...

ante-diluvians :pac: oh man we're in the 19th century here. We've been sea faring for many many thousands of years. Long long before Moses cobbled together a faith in the bronze age. It looks highly likely we may have been doing so for near a million years.

possibly because there was only one landmass before the flood.

Oh there's been one landmass in the past alright.

People were also vegetarians before the Flood ... so fishing (and fishermen and boat-people) only existed after the Flood.
Genesis 9:3 records the moment when God allowed Man to become an omnivore.

Genesis 9:3
King James Version (KJV)

Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

hahahhahahahh oh jesus you crack me up with your "logic". "Bronze age books says X, evidence says Y. I know I'll go with the made up book". Genius.

OK, I'll bite. Even creationists looking at "ante-diluvians" can directly see that one of the biggest differences between us and our ape cousins is our meat eating. How? Lets imagine you and your book is correct in it's chronology. How do you explain stone tools of the ante-diluvians. The earliest stone tools are made to tear open flesh and bone. We've only been agriculturists for the last 10,000 years tops. Even if you believe this earth is only 4000 years old or whatever, the earliest evidence of tool use in man, is not to gather veggies, but meat. How do creationists explain that one then? How do ye explain our biological adaptations for eating meat? And yea how do you explain these ante-diluvians of yours that look very different to us?

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

Surely 'every living thing shall be food for you' would have been more appropriate.

That would do as well.

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

That would do as well.

But which is it? You should demand more accuracy from your textbooks, or else tighten up your own interpretations.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

The Woolemi Pine is exactly the same as the fossil ones found alongside the Dinosaurs

Your ignorance of evolution never ceases to amaze me. Evolution doesn't state that every species must evolve. Indeed, crocodiles haven't evolved much for millions of years (with the exception of their size being reduced in contrast to the size of prey). The reason for this is that crocodiles are successful with what they do. They are on top of the food chain, and have no real struggles - and thus, no requirement to evolve.

I wish you'd read an actual book on evolution, so that you could understand it's basic principles before you waste out time with absurd sound-bytes.

J C wrote: »

... a bit of a useless DNA strand ... and a variety of leaf shape ... is all that 'evolved' ... whilst mankind was supposed to be 'evolving' from something that loked like a glorified rat ... special pleading gone mad!!!:)

Stop with your absurdities, creating a false premise. Man evolved from a more primitive member of the homo genus. You have to go quite a bit back before you get to very primitive rat-like primates. The way you want it to appear to try and strengthen your weak argument is that man directly transformed from rat to man. That is simply not the case. It was a constant evolution of small changes over a very long period of time that saw early primates become homo sapiens and other members of the ape family that we see today.

Now please - read a credible text on evolution before you continue to waste our time with your clear ignorance of the topic.

Plautus

J C wrote: »

It is literally ... and metaphrically true ... and whether you are laughing at or with the 'horse series' ... its good that you are laughing.
Mbeep ... Mbeep!!!:)

What is with this little quirk of yours that I've highlighted? I've seen you do this repeatedly, and it makes you look impossibly stupid, and isn't endearing when it's used to gloss over behaviour calculated to be infuriating and obtuse (and which is, let me reassure you, only funny to yourself.)

Great! You commit to text the sounds a four year old might make when they're pretending to be a fire truck. And you're a twenty-to-thirty year old insisting God created the world in 7 days, 6,000 years ago. I suppose it is analogous, when you think about it.

Doc_Savage

his avatar is the road runner.... what noise does the roadrunner make?

Genghiz Cohen

Doc_Savage wrote: »

his avatar is the road runner.... what noise does the roadrunner make?

And we took the solid piss out of him with a road runner meme.

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

The two diagrams perfectly illustrate the fact that the Human Imagination is endless ... and you can combine different species into an effective infinity of supposed Evolutionist 'trees' and 'stories' ... that change incessantly.

You still have no clue about phylogenetics or taxonomy, do you JC? The system of binomial taxonomy developed by Linnaeus predates Darwin and genetics and all the other information we've learned in the last 200 years. Science is a self-correcting process, which as a claimed scientist, you should already know. The addition of new information can cause us to change our views on things.
With specific regard to taxonomy, much of the work from the time of Linnaeus to the middle of the last century was done on the basis of comparative morphology. However, morphology isn't always a reliable guide, something we learned with the introduction of genetic analysis. So current research in areas like comparative genomics can introduce changes to existing evolutionary trees. Science isn't changing its mind, its making its answers more precise.

J C wrote: »

Anybody can claimthat a variety of tapir turned into a Horse ... or a glorified rat turned into a man ... but if they cannot show how even one specific functional 100 chain sequence can be produced spontaneously then such speculations remain in the realm of speculation.

Not this again. We've been over this again and again JC. How many more times?

1. Establishing a theory of abiogenesis is not a prerequisite for discussing the evolution of different species.

2. No evolutionary biologist today claims that life arose spontaneously and the last theory to have made that claim was Lamarck in 1803.

3. The development of complex organic molecules is not a process determined by chance.

J C wrote: »

... and the fact that crocodiles, rats and tapirs (and thousands of other 'living fossils') have remained crocodiles, rats and tapirs during all the supposed millions of years of Evolutionary 'time' undermines the credibility of these speculations.

So, now you don't even understand basic evolution? There is nothing in evolutionary theory to suggest that a species must evolve over time. If a species is already well-suited to their environment and there is little or no environmental change then there won't be any pressure on the organism to evolve.

J C wrote: »

It really doesn't matter where you place these fossils ... all that can be said scientifically about them is that they existed at one time, were killed catastrophically ... and preserved by rapid burial under millions of tonnes of water-borne sediment that was deposited all over the world ... something like a worldwide flood!!!!:)

Oh, not the Flood, please. I don't think I'll be able to contain the ridicule for that argument.

In any case, here is a good summary article explaining why your statement above is bollox.

Problems with a global flood

J C wrote: »

... some people have four third molars (or 'wisdom' teeth) ... while 35% of the population don't have any at all ... and other people have more than four of these teeth ... but none of this is due to 'evolution' or how much they grind their teeth.
Ditto with the dentitition of Epihippus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_tooth

To save time, I'll direct you to Wibbs' excellent concise response.

J C wrote: »

... he certainly showed that the classification of the 'horse groups' is very 'fluid'... and changes by the minute.

No, the only thing Molen showed is that he has a poor understanding of taxonomy and phylogeny and provides no evidentiary support for his claims.

J C wrote: »

I've read your link ... and I've found no evidence that disproves Molen's claim that horses such as eohippus are found in the same strata as supposedly 'later' ones.

OK, I see basic literacy is an issue for you as well.

To expand on this point slightly. This is the full text of Molen's "claim"

"Hyracotherium/Eohippus and Orohippus do 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.16 (But especially in the newer evolutionary schemes, different names have been given to very similar animals, giving the appearence of evolution as well as providing fame to their discoverers; see examples in Froehlich 20029 and MacFadden 20054). Fossils of Hyracotherium (sic) have also been found very high up in the strata (Pliocene), but these findings have been rejected as reworked (i.e. eroded and deposited at a later strata) in spite of the fact that the geological observations do not show any signs of disturbance.17 Thus, the fact that most of the horses lived almost at the same time undermines their proposed evolution."

Molen only provides two references in support of his claim, footnotes 16 & 17. Both of these refer to:

Barnhart, W.R. A Critical Evaluation of the Phylogeny of the Horse, ICR, 1987

Barnhart in turn refers to previous creationist works such as Hitching's "The Neck of the Giraffe" and Wysong's "The Creation-Evolution Controversy". The claims made in both of those works are dealt with in detail in the link I provided.

Molen claims a lot of things. He seems unwilling or unable to support these claims with evidence though.

J C wrote: »

Tooth development would not be conclusive evidence either way ... as NS is quite capable of selecting dentition patterns to suit particular environments by selecting from the pre-existing CFSI genetic diversity infused at creation in the Horse Kind.

Again with the CFSI. I don't suppose you're ever going to provide evidence for these original created pairs are you?

J C wrote: »

I will not even respond to this Ad Hominem attack, as it makes no scientific observations about the supposed 'horse series' or Molen's research and conclusions.

Look, JC, maybe nobody ever explained to you what an ad hominem is but what I posted is NOT an ad hominem.
An ad hominem is an argument which rejects a claim based on a personal attack, essentially stating, you're wrong because you're an idiot.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying you're wrong because you're an idiot. I'm saying that you're wrong and you're an idiot. See the difference?

dlofnep

[-0-]

dlofnep wrote: »

Belter.

Wibbs

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I'll direct you to Wibbs' excellent concise response.

When those three words occur in that order you can be assured the thread has gone arseways and the world has gone mad. Or I've paypalled someone on the sly.

swampgas

dlofnep wrote: »

Evolution doesn't state that every species must evolve. Indeed, crocodiles haven't evolved much for millions of years (with the exception of their size being reduced in contrast to the size of prey). The reason for this is that crocodiles are successful with what they do. They are on top of the food chain, and have no real struggles - and thus, no requirement to evolve.

Mind if I quibble with you on this point?

I always kind of assumed that evolution is inevitable, in the sense that there is generally always some kind of selection going on. I.e it never really stops.

That doesn't mean that evolution is always going to produce obvious physical changes though.

Surely, quite a bit of the evolutionary pressure for species at the top of the food chain comes from within - i.e. males competing for females, females being more fecund than others or their offspring having better survival rates?

I would have thought that for a crocodile, a lot of the adaptations that get selected are going to be invisible - how long they can stay underwater depends on their ability to control their metabolism, not their shape or size. You could imagine that the immune system of a crocodile would be under evolutionary pressure as well, and that won't show up in any fossil record. Just the pressure to be sexually successful (in terms of competing for mates) would mean that there is always some kind of selective pressure being applied.

dlofnep

swampgas wrote: »

Mind if I quibble with you on this point?

I always kind of assumed that evolution is inevitable, in the sense that there is generally always some kind of selection going on. I.e it never really stops.

The general point is that - evolution is generally driven by a requirement to survive. Any changes by a successful species will be much less than those who are competing for resources.

So when someone points out to one species as being not much different than a primitive version of it - they must take into account that the species was successful and didn't require anything other than subtle changes.

So it's really just a game of semantics.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

So it's (Evolution is) really just a game of semantics.

You could say that allright !!!!:)

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

You could say that allright !!!!:)

Oh look, it's you. I hope by now you understand we don't take you seriously. Just incase you missed the memo.

beerbuddy

I am not an evolutionist but have my doubts that Darwin is completly correct.

Evolution is a slow evolving process that occurs over time in some case
millions of years, Please correct me if i am wrong so far.

I have a few problems with this.For example take the wing of a bird .How can that evolve over a long period of time when 10 percent of a wing is no good to you,80 percent is no good to you either.

So how can we by using a darwinistic approach explain the groWth of the wing on either insects or birds, when the "First Prototypes" of the wing would be completly useless.I personally dont know how long it took the first animal to appear with fully grown wings but what was point in growing them in the first place when they would be of no practical use from perhaps millions of years.

dlofnep

beerbuddy wrote: »

I have a few problems with this.For example take the wing of a bird .How can that evolve over a long period of time when 10 percent of a wing is no good to you,80 percent is no good to you either.

Birds evolved from dinosaurs. The first feathers were most likely used to keep the dinosaurs warm. From there - primitive wings were used for balance running at high speeds (Like Ostriches do today). From there, they were probably used by the likes of Microraptor to glide - and it doesn't take a giant leap from there to powered flight.

So how can we by using a darwinistic approach explain the groWth of the wing on either insects or birds, when the "First Prototypes" of the wing would be completly useless.I personally dont know how long it took the first animal to appear with fully grown wings but what was point in growing them in the first place when they would be of no practical use from perhaps millions of years.

See Ostriches, emus and penguins.

MrPudding

beerbuddy wrote: »

I am not an evolutionist but have my doubts that Darwin is completly correct.

Evolution is a slow evolving process that occurs over time in some case
millions of years, Please correct me if i am wrong so far.

I have a few problems with this.For example take the wing of a bird .How can that evolve over a long period of time when 10 percent of a wing is no good to you,80 percent is no good to you either.

So how can we by using a darwinistic approach explain the groWth of the wing on either insects or birds, when the "First Prototypes" of the wing would be completly useless.I personally dont know how long it took the first animal to appear with fully grown wings but what was point in growing them in the first place when they would be of no practical use from perhaps millions of years.

If you are interested you could try reading a book like "climbing mount improbable."

MrP

Turtwig

beerbuddy wrote: »

I am not an evolutionist but have my doubts that Darwin is completly correct.

Evolution is a slow evolving process that occurs over time in some case
millions of years, Please correct me if i am wrong so far.

I have a few problems with this.For example take the wing of a bird .How can that evolve over a long period of time when 10 percent of a wing is no good to you,80 percent is no good to you either.

So how can we by using a darwinistic approach explain the groWth of the wing on either insects or birds, when the "First Prototypes" of the wing would be completly useless.I personally dont know how long it took the first animal to appear with fully grown wings but what was point in growing them in the first place when they would be of no practical use from perhaps millions of years.

Wibbs

J C wrote: »

You could say that allright !!!!:)

Well I'd be interested to hear your arguments against a few things in this thread. Just the geological ones would be a start. Never mind the logistics of all animals on earth being moved onto a bronze age wooden boat.

J C

beerbuddy wrote: »

I am not an evolutionist but have my doubts that Darwin is completly correct.

Evolution is a slow evolving process that occurs over time in some case
millions of years, Please correct me if i am wrong so far.

I have a few problems with this.For example take the wing of a bird .How can that evolve over a long period of time when 10 percent of a wing is no good to you,80 percent is no good to you either.

So how can we by using a darwinistic approach explain the groWth of the wing on either insects or birds, when the "First Prototypes" of the wing would be completly useless.I personally dont know how long it took the first animal to appear with fully grown wings but what was point in growing them in the first place when they would be of no practical use from perhaps millions of years.

... you are dead right ...
... even a 100% wing would be still useless if the body was too heavy or the nervous system didn't have the ability to direct and control flight ... or if the muscles beating the wings didn't work ... etc. ... etc.
Basically there are an efffective infinity of ways not to fly ... but a very limited and highly specified number of ways to fly!!
... and the only way to overcome the maths is the appliance of intelligence to the process.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

If you are interested you could try reading a book like "climbing mount improbable."

MrP

... except for the fact that it is actually mount impossible!!!!:)

Wibbs

J C wrote: »

... except for the fact that it is actually mount impossible!!!!:)

Simple question JC; why would god tell us one thing about a flood, but at the same time create all the evidence out there that would at the very least cause us to question such things? That the more we actually looked the more his evidence dwindled to nothing? That makes no sense. Surely it would be as clear as day that there was one inundation and one ecosystem that was tagged for survival and contrary to your take there really really, did I mention really isn't.. Actually I beg another question. Why did Noah leave all the dinosaurs and mammoths and Neandertals and dire wolves out of the ark? After all he was asked to take all the animals of the world. Seems a bit remiss of him to miss a diplodocus, yet let a lemur on board? Was the diplodocus in some way evil, so could not be saved?

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

... you are dead right ...
... even a 100% wing would be still useless if the body was too heavy or the nervous system didn't have the ability to direct and control flight ... or if the muscles beating the wings didn't work ... etc. ... etc.
Basically there are an efffective infinity of ways not to fly ... but a very limited and highly specified number of ways to fly!!
... and the only way to overcome the maths is the appliance of intelligence to the process.

Like, in an Ostrich?

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

... except for the fact that it is actually mount impossible!!!!:)

No JC the book is called "climbing mount improbable" please stop telling lies.

And in the subject of irreducible complexity, I seem to recall you having your ass handed to you by a very nice lady who happened to be an eye expert.

Please seek help JC. You are wasting you life. You need help from a mental health professional. Even of your god does exist, which it doesn't, you won't be going to heaven because you are a liar and lies make baby jebus cry. That means that most of you posts make baby jebus cry. If baby jebus did not like emoticons and they also made him cry, then all of your posts make baby jebus cry. You are a bad christian. An affront to the faithful. And as for your scientific credentials? Words fail me.

MrP

Sarky

Oh he's getting into heaven, because his sect redefined the criteria for getting in. That's how it works, right?

And all science is wrong because creationists redefined the meaning of words like evidence, peer-review, right, wrong, theory, fact, credibility...

If truth makes you uncomfortable, you change words so that truth now means what you want.

Sure, it's dishonest and cowardly, but when you're terrified of your own mortality and the prospect of having spent your life dedicated to a lie, not many people are brave enough to accept it. So it is, I suspect, with J C.

The alternative is that he's just thick as frozen pigsh*t, but I'd rather exhaust the other possibilities before having to conclude that. Because I'm terrified that it could be possible for humans to be that dumb.

Now J C, what I've done there is use what I think you've been doing for comic effect, much in the manner as you've tried and failed to do. You'd have to be very stupid to think otherwise, and I'd rather not be adding this caveat, but unless you provide some evidence to the contrary, it is the conclusion that everyone reading this thread will accept.

You can start with that paper we've been asking you to debunk for months. You keep saying you've addressed it. But it is painfully obvious that your responses so far have been rubbish. At most, you've just replied with long-winded versions of "that's wrong!", and not once have you provided any detail as to why. That isn't how science works. You must have been a terrible scientist if you don't know that.

Debunk the paper now, please. I think you've cowered from it long enough. Or you can admit you're wrong about cfsi and never try to use it in an argument again.

What'll it be? Will you learn from your mistakes, or will you just stick your head in the sand again, bleating out arguments that we all know have been destroyed for years?