Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
Prof Flew was an ID Proponent ... and you guys conflate ID Proponents with Creationists ... so are you now going to accept that both Evolutionists and Creationists are ID Proponents?
The only difference between creationists and ID'ers is that the pig is wearing
a (metaphorical) tuxedo & cap saying
0 -
-
-
That is no way to talk about eminent (former) Atheists ... and equally eminent scientists!!!!sponsoredwalk wrote: »The only difference between creationists and ID'ers is that the pig is wearing
a (metaphorical) tuxedo & cap saying
Are you so wedded to Evolution that you really can't see that it is a load of baloney??
... or are you a great big Troll ... yourself???0 -
- Dinosaurs are mammals
- Mammals once ate dinosaurs somehow proves anything or is even relevant to our conversation,
- "macroevolution is indeed a load of unsubstantiated baloney without a shred of evidence or logic supporting it" but you accept microevolution
- (and, to reiterate, macroevolution is defined as microevolution over time (lol:pac:))
- Your invalidated "proof" that all of a sudden you don't mention in every single response (for some reason) had any relevance to the theory of evolution whatsoever
- Evolution is a fairytale even though you accept every component that forms the foundation of this "fairytale" & a recent post of yours indicates that you accept evolution so much you think a creation scientist wrote the definition
- Genetic changes are always detrimental or barely noticeable
even though you've been given evidence via studies of drosophilia explicitly refuting that nonsense. - The laws of thermodynamics are a major supporting evidence of intelligent design not because they predict the heat death of the universe & the demise of the sun ending all life on earth but because life on earth harnesses this energy for it's own survival. Put another way, because the laws that predict the heat death of the universe can be temporarily reversed locally by materialistic atheistic chemical processes it's proof of ID somehow... Nevermind that every action always increases the total entropy no... This is the most myopic & self-serving argument I've read out of you - it's just so obvious how biased you are Mr. "scientist"
- Ignore all the questions in this list for quite some time & ignore the actual list I keep re-posting because you continually ignore all it for some unspecified, but I'm sure free & truthful, reason.
thread, all of which is 100% wrong, we're still waiting for you to address
even 1 of these points.
Mr. Scientist, I gave you a chance when I wrote:sponsoredwalk wrote: »
Note: If you can't answer all the points on the list seriously
then you are just trolling by ignoring old arguments & starting new ones.
but you selectively quoted a different part of that post & responded with
a religious video so I'm finally calling troll on this one.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I have exhaustively and repeatedly dealt with these issues ... and your repeated denial that I have done so ... indicates that you are a big fat Troll yourself!!!!sponsoredwalk wrote: »- Dinosaurs are mammals
I said that some big Dinosaurs were Mammals - and I provided the evidence for this ... low surface:volume ratio, warm-blooded quadrupeds, presence of hair and skeletal structure. - Mammals once ate dinosaurs somehow proves anything or is even relevant to our conversation,
Large dinosaur-eating mammals living alongside Dinosaurs blows the whole Evoluionary time-line apart - "macroevolution is indeed a load of unsubstantiated baloney without a shred of evidence or logic supporting it" but you accept microevolution
I don't accept that Evolution is capable of producing CFSI ... if we define Macro-evolution as evolution between Kinds ... and micro-evolution as evolution within Created Kinds ... then the former doesn't exist ... while the latter is a fact. - (and, to reiterate, macroevolution is defined as microevolution over time (lol:pac:))
... see above, for my definitions of Macro-evolution and micro-evolution. - Your invalidated "proof" that all of a sudden you don't mention in every single response (for some reason) had any relevance to the theory of evolution whatsoever
... my proof is a maths-based valid scientific proof ... while the 'theory of evolution' is completely invalid. - Evolution is a fairytale even though you accept every component that forms the foundation of this "fairytale" & a recent post of yours indicates that you accept evolution so much you think a creation scientist wrote the definition
... if evolution is defined as genetic drift over time ... then I accept that this occurs ... within the limits of the genetic diversity capacity of each Created Kind. - Genetic changes are always detrimental or barely noticeable
even though you've been given evidence via studies of drosophilia explicitly refuting that nonsense.
... I must have missed that ... where did you provide evidence of Drosophila melanogaster ever becoming anything other than more Drosophila melanogaster. - The laws of thermodynamics are a major supporting evidence of intelligent design not because they predict the heat death of the universe & the demise of the sun ending all life on earth but because life on earth harnesses this energy for it's own survival. Put another way, because the laws that predict the heat death of the universe can be temporarily reversed locally by materialistic atheistic chemical processes it's proof of ID somehow... Nevermind that every action always increases the total entropy no... This is the most myopic & self-serving argument I've read out of you - it's just so obvious how biased you are Mr. "scientist"
I said that that the local application of intelligently harnessed/directed energy is the only known means of reducing local entropy. The undirected application of raw energy destroys order and increases entropy both locally and universally. - Ignore all the questions in this list for quite some time & ignore the actual list I keep re-posting because you continually ignore all it for some unspecified, but I'm sure free & truthful, reason.
0 - Dinosaurs are mammals
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Dinosaurs are mammals
I said that some big Dinosaurs were Mammals - and I provided the evidence for this ... low surface:volume ratio, warm-blooded quadrupeds, presence of hair and skeletal structure. - But that is not the defining feature of a mammal, and the "definition" of a dinosaur explicitly distinguishes dinosaurs from mammals:
-
Sauropsida ("lizard faces") is a group of amniotes that includes all existing reptiles and birds and their fossil forefathers, including the dinosaurs, the immediate ancestors of birds. Sauropsida is distinguished from Theropsida ("beast faces"), more commonly called Synapsida, which includes mammals and their fossil ancestors.
- link
- Mammals once ate dinosaurs somehow proves anything or is even relevant to our conversation,
Large dinosaur-eating mammals living alongside Dinosaurs blows the whole Evoluionary time-line apart
How? -
evolutionismist description wrote:mammals, for example, rarely exceeded the size of a cat, and were generally rodent-sized carnivores of small prey.[17] One notable exception is Repenomamus giganticus, a triconodont weighing between 12 kilograms (26 lb) and 14 kilograms (31 lb) that is known to have eaten small dinosaurs like young Psittacosaurus. link
- "macroevolution is indeed a load of unsubstantiated baloney without a shred of evidence or logic supporting it" but you accept microevolution
I don't accept that Evolution is capable of producing CFSI ... if we define Macro-evolution as evolution between Kinds ... and micro-evolution as evolution within Created Kinds ... then the former doesn't exist ... while the latter is a fact.
"If" being the key word there, only your misinformed creationist babble defines macro-evolution using the thoroughally unscientific, ill-defined & unacceptable term "kind", as I've quoted to you more than once, macroevolution is defined as microevolution over time, time is the only difference in this definition. - (and, to reiterate, macroevolution is defined as microevolution over time (lol
))
... see above, for my definitions of Macro-evolution and micro-evolution.
You play fast & loose not only with arguments & responses but definitions too, lets look at a few: - CFSI
- Intelligence
- Macroevolution
- Evolution
- Species
- Mammal
- created kinds
- proof
- mathematical proof
- scientist
- harnessed
- Your invalidated "proof" that all of a sudden you don't mention in every single response (for some reason) had any relevance to the theory of evolution whatsoever
... my proof is a maths-based valid scientific proof ... while the 'theory of evolution' is completely invalid. - What is funny is that you call the theory of evolution "completely invalid" but the bullet point under this one you say that if evolution is defined as X then you accept it, I mean you're saying that evolution defined in a way that is very very partially true is acceptable to you, but you're also saying it's "completely invalid", how stupid do you have to be to write a post in which you both accept a theory and call it invalid at the same time? This is either plain stupidity or just a troll
- Also, your proof has been 100% debunked, you're using maths in empty space ignoring natural selection & the importance of NS on a single beneficial permutation therefore you have NO proof, every time you repeat that you do you just remind us how ignorant & childish you really are, that's not me insulting you that's just plain fact at this stage It would be more insulting for me to humour you & not call you self-contradictory, ignorant & unable to comprehend your own errors.
- Evolution is a fairytale even though you accept every component that forms the foundation of this "fairytale" & a recent post of yours indicates that you accept evolution so much you think a creation scientist wrote the definition
... if evolution is defined as genetic drift over time ... then I accept that this occurs ... within the limits of the genetic diversity capacity of each Created Kind. -
wikipedia on evolution wrote:Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] This change results from interactions between processes that introduce variation into a population, and other processes that remove it. As a result, variants with particular traits become more, or less, common. A trait is a particular characteristic—anatomical, biochemical or behavioural—that is the result of gene–environment interaction.
- The main source of variation is mutation, which introduces genetic changes. These changes are heritable (can be passed on through reproduction), and may give rise to alternative traits in organisms. Another source of variation is genetic recombination, which shuffles the genes into new combinations which can result in organisms exhibiting different traits. Under certain circumstances, variation can also be increased by the transfer of genes between species,[2][3] and by the extremely rare, but significant, wholesale incorporation of genomes through endosymbiosis.[4][5]
Two main processes cause variants to become more common or rarer in a population. One is natural selection, through which traits that aid survival and reproduction become more common, while traits that hinder survival and reproduction become rarer. Natural selection occurs because only a small proportion of individuals in each generation will survive and reproduce, since resources are limited and organisms produce many more offspring than their environment can support. Over many generations, heritable variation in traits is filtered by natural selection and the beneficial changes are successively retained through differential survival and reproduction. This iterative process adjusts traits so they become better suited to an organism's environment: these adjustments are called adaptations.[6]
However, not all change is adaptive. Another cause of evolution is genetic drift, which leads to random changes in how common traits are in a population. Genetic drift is most important when traits do not strongly influence survival—particularly so in small populations, in which chance plays a disproportionate role in the frequency of traits passed on to the next generation.[7][8] Genetic drift is important in the neutral theory of molecular evolution, and plays a role in the molecular clocks that are used in phylogenetic studies.
A key process in evolution is speciation, in which a single ancestral species splits and diversifies into multiple new species. There are several modes through which this occurs. Ultimately, all living (and extinct) species are descended from a common ancestor via a long series of speciation events. These events stretch back in a diverse "tree of life" which has grown over the 3.5 billion years during which life has existed on Earth.[9][10][11][12] This is visible in anatomical, genetic and other similarities between groups of organisms, geographical distribution of related species, the fossil record and the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution - Your definition is a lot different tbh, also - since you forget the last thing said to you, your response here accepts a part of evolutionary theory (genetic drift), other posts of yours have accepted other key parts of the theory, but the answer you gave right above this one called evolution "completely invalid", I can't believe someone could be serious posting something this stupid in that in one response they supposedly invalidate the theory that in the next post they say they accept
- Genetic changes are always detrimental or barely noticeable
even though you've been given evidence via studies of drosophilia explicitly refuting that nonsense.
... I must have missed that ... where did you provide evidence of Drosophila melanogaster ever becoming anything other than more Drosophila melanogaster. - This is the post where I gave you the evidence but you expect to see a crocoduck appear or else you wont listen. I haven't claimed D Melanogaster will become anything else but a mutant strain of melanogastor because it takes a (wait for it) macro time scale of accumulated mutations for this to happen.
- The laws of thermodynamics are a major supporting evidence of intelligent design not because they predict the heat death of the universe & the demise of the sun ending all life on earth but because life on earth harnesses this energy for it's own survival. Put another way, because the laws that predict the heat death of the universe can be temporarily reversed locally by materialistic atheistic chemical processes it's proof of ID somehow... Nevermind that every action always increases the total entropy no... This is the most myopic & self-serving argument I've read out of you - it's just so obvious how biased you are Mr. "scientist"
I said that that the local application of intelligently harnessed/directed energy is the only known means of reducing local entropy. The undirected application of raw energy destroys order and increases entropy both locally and universally. -
Please bear in mind that I said that The Laws Thermodynamics indicate that everything in the universe is moving from a state of order to disorder ... and this can only be locally reversed by the input of intelligently harnessed energy. The Laws Thermodynamics are therefore a major supporting proof for the Intelligent Design of life.
- Another lie for the lie bucket :cool:
- Ignore all the questions in this list for quite some time & ignore the actual list I keep re-posting because you continually ignore all it for some unspecified, but I'm sure free & truthful, reason.
- I notice you didn't bother responding to this point (wonder why...) but finally we get some answers, but only after you were goaded into it in the first place & all the responses were no better than the old debunked & horrendous answers of yours we've all read already, if they made any sense the first time you said them why would we continually ask you for a proper response?
I have exhaustively and repeatedly dealt with these issues ... and your repeated denial that I have done so ... indicates that you are a big fat Troll yourself!!!!
If your responses made any sense the first time you said them why
would we continually ask you for a proper response?0 - Dinosaurs are mammals
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement