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 Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
J C wrote:.......well macro-Evolution certainly cannot be accepted on scientific grounds.:D
It most certainly should, but not for reasons you're likely to agree with.
Macro-evolution should cannot be accepted on scientific grounds because its not a scientific concept, but rather a wishy-washy, moving-goalposts concept dreamed up and used by some of those who oppose the Theory of Evolution and who's definition is shifted around to be whatever is convenient for opponents of evolution when invoked.
For someone claiming to be scientifically literate, I fail to see how your clinging to the notion of macro-evolution is anything but intellectual dishonesty.0 -
-
-
Wicknight
Actually the first one is 30 articles that mention the word "speciation"
My apologies, the actual 350 scientific references to Creationist Speciation are HERE:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/Default.aspx?qt=speciation
……….and not THERE (where there are only 29 scientific references):-
http://www.creationresearch.org/sear...Entire+Website
Scofflaw
Do we actually have a definition of macro-evolution? I thought we did, but that one meant speciation - which the new one obviously doesn't.
I'm betting that JC's "response" will be along the lines of "hey, you're the evolutionists, you should be telling me!".
Got it in one Scofflaw.:D
Although I will venture a definition myself:-
"Macro-Evolution is the unfounded faith-filled belief that, over a few billion years, slimeballs spontaneously developed into eyeballs!!!":eek:
Bonkey
Macro-evolution should cannot be accepted on scientific grounds because its not a scientific concept, but rather a wishy-washy, moving-goalposts concept dreamed up and used by some of those who oppose the Theory of Evolution and who's definition is shifted around to be whatever is convenient for opponents of evolution when invoked.
You’re nearly correct:-
Macro-evolution cannot be accepted on scientific grounds because its not a scientific concept, but rather a wishy-washy, moving-goalposts concept dreamed up and used by some of those who favour the Theory of Evolution and who's definition is shifted around to be whatever is convenient for proponents of evolution when invoked.:eek: :rolleyes: 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:Wicknight
Actually the first one is 30 articles that mention the word "speciation"
My apologies, the actual 350 scientific references to Creationist Speciation are HERE:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/Default.aspx?qt=speciation
……….and not THERE (where there are only 29 scientific references):-
http://www.creationresearch.org/sear...Entire+Website
Again this isn't helping. For a start AnswersInGensis doesn't seem to contain any papers, simply things like FAQ that spend most of their time giving out about evolution rather than putting forward explinations or evidence for Creationist theories. Secondly your second link doesn't work.
Instead of simply pointing me to search engines and putting in "speciation" is there not a specific paper or papers you could point me to that you believe explains the process that allowed 6,000 animal species to develop into tens of thousands in such a short period of time?0 -
-
-
-
Originally posted by J C
I will venture a definition myself:-
"Macro-Evolution is the unfounded faith-filled belief that, over a few billion years, slimeballs spontaneously developed into eyeballs!!!"
Scofflaw
Alas, my old duck, you are the one that uses the term (macro-Evolution), not us - so 'tis for you to explain, not us. Tum te tum, diddley-oh.
Alas, my old Anas,** could I gently point out that I DID provide a definition of macro-Evolution in my posting above!!!:D
**Anas is the Taxonomic Genus to which Domestic Ducks belong!!
Scofflaw
pom, pom,
what was the definition of Kind again?,
A Created Kind is a group of organisms that approximates to the genus level of taxonomic nomenclature. Examples include the Dog (Canis, Fennecus & Lycacaon) Kind, the Horse (Equus) Kind, the Big Cat ((Panthera) Kind, the Cattle (Bos, Bison, Bubalus & Syncerus) Kind and the Rhinoceros (Didermocerous, Dicerous & Rhinoceros) Kind.
All members of a Created Kind share similar general physiognomies and many species within a Kind can interbreed with each other, although usually only in captivity and often with sterile offspring resulting.
The topic is discussed further here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp
The scientific study of the Created Kind is called Baraminology.
Here are just a few links to information on this topic
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i1/kind.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter2.asp
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/systbib.html
Wicknight
is there not a specific paper or papers you could point me to that you believe explains the process that allowed 6,000 animal species to develop into tens of thousands in such a short period of time?
It is a ‘work in progress’ for Creation Science – and the link at http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/Default.aspx?qt=speciation
does provide links to several hundred scientific references on this work.
Scofflaw
Indeed, which were the ones that JC read, that convinced him of it?
Any of the following:-
Fast speciation in Mosquitos:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/biters.asp
Fast speciation in Darwin’s Finches:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/finches.asp
Speciation only occurs within Created Kinds
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp
Genetic Engineers rapidly ‘reversing’ rapid speciation within the Yeast Kind
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/species.asp
Rapid Mouse Devolution
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0526fast_mouse.asp
Hox gene mutation causes disaster – and not punctuated Evolution:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4205.asp
Rapid Lizard Speciation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/lizards.asp
More Devolution in a cave:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/mutants.asp
Rapid Bear speciation (including the Panda)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/bears.asp
An Evolutionist Conference provides evidence for Creationist Speciation:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i2/speciation.asp
………and many, many MORE!!!:D
pH
Wherever he learnt all this also seems to have taught him that:
Having Warm blood makes a mammal ……………
……………Immersion in seawater is a great meat-preserver.
So I ask you J C, which mammal will you have for Christmas dinner, the goose or the turkey (both have warm blood), and will it be fresh, frozen or sea-dipped?
As it so happens, we will be having fresh or possibly frozen Turkey (Bird) and salt-preserved Ham (Mammal) !!!!!:eek:
Of course, I accept that BOTH Birds and Mammals are endotherms.
However, could I gently point out that the large Sauropod Dinosaurs were QUADRUPEDS and has HAIR follicles on their skin, as well as being endothermic!!!!
Have you seen any Birds recently with four legs and a hairy chest????:D
Candidates for warm-blooded, quadrupedal, hairy, (and therefore mammalian status) include the Triceratops (the Dinosaur with the bony collar frills and the horns on its nose – which had the general body shape of a Rhinoceros). Other mammalian candidates include the Stegosaurus (which looked like a big Armadillo) and the Brachiosaurus (which had the general body physique of an Elephant - but with a longer tail and neck).
A creature that IS warm blooded, with the same physiognomy and footprints as an Elephant or a Rhinoceros IS VERY LIKELY to be MAMMAL – in fact what else could it be?
We are now pretty certain that the LARGEST land MAMMALS that EVER lived were in fact, “Dinosaurs”!!!!!
The reason why Evolutionists ASSUMED that all Dinosaurs were reptiles was based on their OBSERVATION that warm-blooded creatures were physiologically more complex than cold-blooded creatures. They therefore logically concluded that large MAMMALS could only have evolved in more recent geological times due to the extra time required for all of the physiological and temperature control systems to supposedly evolve.
This paradigm was also necessary to lend any credibility to the concept of the ‘Evolution of Man’ – if very large land MAMMALS existed supposedly 300 million years ago, then the next question would be what creature did they evolve from and where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this. Indeed, the proof that large mammal Dinosaurs existed, completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution. And so practically EVERY Evolutionary assumption ‘bites the dust’ because of this fact!!!!! :eek: :cool: 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
J C wrote:Originally posted by J C
I will venture a definition myself:-
"Macro-Evolution is the unfounded faith-filled belief that, over a few billion years, slimeballs spontaneously developed into eyeballs!!!"
Scofflaw
Alas, my old duck, you are the one that uses the term(macro-Evolution), not us - so 'tis for you to explain, not us. Tum te tum, diddley-oh.
Alas, my old Anas,** could I gently point out that I DID provide a definition of macro-Evolution in my posting above!!!:D
Oh, it's a definition? I assumed it was a throwaway line, but I suppose....no....sorry...it still looks like a throwaway line. Seriously, JC, you keep using the term ("macro-evolution"), and you don't have a definition other than this throwaway?
Look, just in case you missed all the other posts covering this - we ("evolutionists") don't use the term. You ("creationist") use the term.
We use the term "evolution", which we can define for you as many times as you like, and have already done so repeatedly.
You, on the other hand, use the term "macro-evolution", which is something you claim doesn't happen (as opposed to "micro-evolution", which presumably does).
If what "macro-evolution" means is what you have said above, then "macro-evolution" certainly does exist. It cannot be said to "happen" or "not happen", because it apparently refers to a belief.
If, more precisely (I'm helping you here as part of my committment to helping the differently abled lead more normal lives), you mean that "macro-evolution is the bits of evolution that don't happen", then this too is a tautological truth.
So far, so silly. However, you appear also to wish us to take seriously the scientific use of a term that is actually a tautological gibe, and to debate it as if it were somehow a solid and meaningful concept.
At this point I salute you as either a great artist, or probably the most stupid person I have ever met.J C wrote:Scofflaw
pom, pom,
what was the definition of Kind again?,
A Created Kind is a group of organisms that approximates to the genus level of taxonomic nomenclature. Examples include the Dog (Canis, Fennecus & Lycacaon) Kind, the Horse (Equus) Kind, the Big Cat ((Panthera) Kind, the Cattle (Bos, Bison, Bubalus & Syncerus) Kind and the Rhinoceros (Didermocerous, Dicerous & Rhinoceros) Kind.
All members of a Created Kind share similar general physiognomies and many species within a Kind can interbreed with each other, although usually only in captivity and often with sterile offspring resulting.
The topic is discussed further here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp
The scientific study of the Created Kind is called Baraminology.
Here are just a few links to information on this topic
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v5/i1/kind.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/re1/chapter2.asp
http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/systbib.html
It would be nice to think that this was not simply the result of a few hours with a search engine. I enjoyed the links on Baraminology, which I see is rather a youthful subject (first conference 1999) given the age of Bible. Amusingly, given our recent discussion, I see that it dispenses rather with the Linnaean classification...J C wrote:Wicknight
is there not a specific paper or papers you could point me to that you believe explains the process that allowed 6,000 animal species to develop into tens of thousands in such a short period of time?
It is a ‘work in progress’ for Creation Science – and the link at http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/Default.aspx?qt=speciation
does provide links to several hundred scientific references on this work.
Indeed - a work in progress. What did you guys do with the 3000-year head start?J C wrote:Scofflaw
Indeed, which were the ones that JC read, that convinced him of it?
Any of the following:-
………and many, many MORE!!!:D
Well, then, I hate to ask, but why did you initially deny speciation? Was it a Pauline or a Petrine problem?J C wrote:The reason why Evolutionists ASSUMED that all Dinosaurs were reptiles was based on their OBSERVATION that warm-blooded creatures were physiologically more complex than cold-blooded creatures. They therefore logically concluded that large MAMMALS could only have evolved in more recent geological times due to the extra time required for all of the physiological and temperature control systems to supposedly evolve.
This paradigm was also necessary to lend any credibility to the concept of the ‘Evolution of Man’ – if very large land MAMMALS existed supposedly 300 million years ago, then the next question would be what creature did they evolve from and where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this. Indeed, the proof that large mammal Dinosaurs existed, completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution. And so practically EVERY Evolutionary assumption ‘bites the dust’ because of this fact!!!!! :eek: :cool:
Darn it. You've made me break my resolution not to laugh out loud at your claims, and your ability to swing wildly from conjecture to conjecture through the forests of ignorance. I forgive you, though - you know not what you do (probably).
I would deride your claims to scientific understanding,
but it would be superfluous,
Scofflaw0 -
-
-
-
-
J C wrote:Bonkey
Macro-evolution should cannot be accepted on scientific grounds because its not a scientific concept, but rather a wishy-washy, moving-goalposts concept dreamed up and used by some of those who oppose the Theory of Evolution and who's definition is shifted around to be whatever is convenient for opponents of evolution when invoked.
You’re nearly correct:-
Macro-evolution cannot be accepted on scientific grounds because its not a scientific concept, but rather a wishy-washy, moving-goalposts concept dreamed up and used by some of those who favour the Theory of Evolution and who's definition is shifted around to be whatever is convenient for proponents of evolution when invoked.:eek: :rolleyes:
If your definition were correct, could you explain why it is that the proponents of evolution are asking for a definition of macro-evolution? How can we be shifting its meaning about whilst simultaneously asking for its meaning to be supplied by those using the term.
If we have shifted the meaning at times, its because we are taking a best guess at what the term appears to mean given its usage by those levellnig it as a criticism of evolutionary theory. There is simply no consistency in the examples or clarifications of the term as offered by evolutionary critics.
If its a scientific term, or a term with clear scientific meaning, then there's a clear definition of what it is. You've offered your "slimeballs to eyeballs" comment as a definition, which is far from clear.
Can you clearly explain the distinction between evolution and macro-evolution. At what clearly defined point is the threshold crossed - that one is no longer talking about evolution but macro-evolution.
You have offered no clear distinction.
You have offered no clear definition of macro-evolution.
You have been asked repeatedly for one, but refuse to offer one.
If evolutionary critics are reduced to guessing what you mean by the term, is it any surprise that their guesses will be no more consistent than your usage of it?
Until such a clear definition is defined, there can be no honest criticism levelled against evoutionary theory on such grounds.0 -
Originally Posted by J C
It (Speciation Research) is a ‘work in progress’ for Creation Science
Wicknight
Is that code for "we don't have a clue"?
It actually means what I said – that Speciation Research is currently underway and making great progress!!!!!:cool:
Scofflaw
We use the term "evolution", which we can define for you as many times as you like
Please do describe the mechanism of ‘Chemicals to Man Evolution’ then.
Scofflaw
At this point I salute you as either a great artist, or probably the most stupid person I have ever met.
As you have never met me, I graciously accept your artistic accolade!!!!:eek:
Scofflaw
enjoyed the links on Baraminology, which I see is rather a youthful subject (first conference 1999) given the age of Bible.
Yes indeed, although Creation Science can trace it’s origins right back to the ‘Fathers of Modern Science’ like Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal, it continues to operate at the ‘cutting edge’ of science, and it also has brand new disciplines like Baraminology!!!:D
Scofflaw
Indeed (Creationist Speciation research is) - a work in progress. What did you guys do with the 3000-year head start?
Unfortunately many leading scientists squandered their ‘head start’ in the scientific understanding of life, through their dalliance with Theistic Evolution, during the 20th Century.
Some have realised their mistake – and they have now become Creation Scientists – but there is considerable ‘catching up’ to be done with Speciation and Baraminology, to name but two areas of Research!!!:D
Originally Posted by J C
The reason why Evolutionists ASSUMED that all Dinosaurs were reptiles was based on their OBSERVATION that warm-blooded creatures were physiologically more complex than cold-blooded creatures. They therefore concluded that large MAMMALS could only have evolved in more recent geological times due to the extra time required for all of the physiological and temperature control systems to supposedly evolve.
This paradigm was also necessary to lend any credibility to the concept of the ‘Evolution of Man’ – if very large land MAMMALS existed supposedly 300 million years ago, then the next question would be what creature did they evolve from and where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this. Indeed, the proof that large mammal Dinosaurs existed, completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution. And so practically EVERY Evolutionary assumption ‘bites the dust’ because of this fact!!!!!
Scofflaw
Darn it. You've made me break my resolution not to laugh out loud at your claims, and your ability to swing wildly from conjecture to conjecture through the forests of ignorance.
What exactly was the source of your laughter???
Was it perhaps the nervous laugh of somebody who has just realised that ‘the game is up’ for Evolution?:D
…….because, if very large land MAMMALS existed supposedly 300 million years ago, then the next question is what creature did they evolve from and where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this.
Indeed, the fact that large mammal Dinosaurs existed, completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution!!!!!!:eek:
Scofflaw
I would deride your claims to scientific understanding,
but it would be superfluous,
…….your derision would actually be baseless.
……..just like your belief in Evolution!!!:eek: 0 -
Quote Wicknight
From Wikipedia
Mammals belong among the amniotes, and in particular to a group called the synapsids, which are distinguished by the shape of their skulls, having a single hole on each side where jaw muscles attach, called a temporal fenestra. In comparison, dinosaurs, birds, and most reptiles are diapsids, with two temporal fenestrae on each side of the skull; and turtles, with no temporal fenestra, are anapsids.
Dinosaurs weren't mammals.
Could I provide the following definition of Mammals from Encyclopaedia Britannica :-
“Mammals are members of the class Mammalia, a group of backboned animals in which the young are nourished with milk secreted by special glands (mammae) of the mother. Another unique mammalian feature is hair; all mammals possess hair at some point in life, though it is found only in the fetal stage of certain whales. Mammals are also warm-blooded and four-limbed (except in some aquatic varieties)…………."
So, my point that candidates for warm-blooded, quadrupedal, hairy, mammalian status include the Triceratops (the Dinosaur with the bony collar frills and the horns on its nose – which had the general body shape of a Rhinoceros) is valid.
Other mammalian candidates include the Stegosaurus (which looked like a big Armadillo) and the Brachiosaurus (which had the general body physique of an Elephant - but with a longer tail and neck)
In addition Mammals are noted for limbs that function close to the plane of the trunk - something for which Triceratops, Stegosaurus and Brachiosaurus are also noted (i.e., the limbs are positioned more directly under the trunk as opposed to sprawling out to the sides, as with quadruped Reptiles) !!!!!:cool:
Quote Wicknight
Why bother even using the terms when you clearly don't understand what they mean?
A good question to ask yourself, Wicknight – and I would also suggest that you ‘brush up’ on how to recognise a Mammal – as distinct from a Reptile or a Bird!!!!!;)
pH
here J C, have a look here at the convoluted nonsense the evolutionists have gone to, just to rescue their 'dinosaurs aren't mammals theory'.
It tells us nothing about how the major animal Classes originated!!!!!
I also take your word for it, that it was motivated by the desire of Evolutionists “to rescue their 'dinosaurs aren't mammals theory'”!!!!:D
Son Goku
Dinosaurs are mammals? What?
JC, are you actually just messing, how could somebody say something that ridiculous? Please tell me that was a wind up.
The only people ‘winding you up' are the Evolutionists who told you that the four-legged, close-limbed, hair-follicled, warm-blooded Triceratops, Stegosaurus and Brachiosaurus were LIZARDS!!!!:eek:
bonkey
Can you clearly explain the distinction between evolution and macro-evolution. At what clearly defined point is the threshold crossed - that one is no longer talking about evolution but macro-evolution.
‘Evolution’ of pre-existing genetic traits via artificial or natural selection is observed and valid.
'Macro-Evolution' of new higher levels of anatomical organisation at every supposed point between Pond Scum and Man is unobserved and invalid. It also breaches the Laws of Probability (without a massive input of intelligence).:D 0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
We use the term "evolution", which we can define for you as many times as you like
Please do describe the mechanism of ‘Chemicals to Man Evolution’ then.
Sigh. It's also been pointed out to you that biogenesis (origin of life) plays no part in the Theory of Evolution. Please try to keep up.
Again, there is no point in us trying to define for you a term that does not exist. ‘Chemicals to Man Evolution’ is another of your terms - you define it, and we will ridicule it.
Evolution is "change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by changes in the allele frequencies of genes", and operates by a combination of genetic change and natural selection.J C wrote:Scofflaw
At this point I salute you as either a great artist, or probably the most stupid person I have ever met.
As you have never met me, I graciously accept your artistic accolade!!!!:eek:
I refer, of course, solely to your activities here - although naturally you prefer the literalist interpretation. I included the assumption that (not having met you other than as JC) you might be reasonable and intelligent in other aspects of your existence.J C wrote:Scofflaw
enjoyed the links on Baraminology, which I see is rather a youthful subject (first conference 1999) given the age of Bible.
Yes indeed, although Creation Science can trace it’s origins right back to the ‘Fathers of Modern Science’ like Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Pascal, it continues to operate at the ‘cutting edge’ of science, and it also has brand new disciplines like Baraminology!!!:D
Tiresome. Science outgrew Creationism, but even Man had to start as Muck.J C wrote:Scofflaw
Indeed (Creationist Speciation research is) - a work in progress. What did you guys do with the 3000-year head start?
Unfortunately many leading scientists squandered their ‘head start’ in the scientific understanding of life, through their dalliance with Theistic Evolution, during the 20th Century.
Some have realised their mistake – and they have now become Creation Scientists – but there is considerable ‘catching up’ to be done with Speciation and Baraminology, to name only two areas of Research!!!:D
Well, "to name the only two areas of research" would be more accurate.J C wrote:Originally Posted by J C
The reason why Evolutionists ASSUMED that all Dinosaurs were reptiles was based on their OBSERVATION that warm-blooded creatures were physiologically more complex than cold-blooded creatures. They therefore concluded that large MAMMALS could only have evolved in more recent geological times due to the extra time required for all of the physiological and temperature control systems to supposedly evolve.
This paradigm was also necessary to lend any credibility to the concept of the ‘Evolution of Man’ – if very large land MAMMALS existed supposedly 300 million years ago, then the next question would be what creature did they evolve from and where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this. Indeed, the proof that large mammal Dinosaurs existed, completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution. And so practically EVERY Evolutionary assumption ‘bites the dust’ because of this fact!!!!!
Scofflaw
Darn it. You've made me break my resolution not to laugh out loud at your claims, and your ability to swing wildly from conjecture to conjecture through the forests of ignorance.
What exactly was the source of your laughter???
You.J C wrote:Was it perhaps the nervous laugh of somebody who has just realised that ‘the game is up’ for Evolution?:D
Not as such...I fear your enthusiasm for the assault is far greater than your capacity for it.J C wrote:…….because, if very large land MAMMALS existed supposedly 300 million years ago, then the next question is what creature did they evolve from and where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this.
Indeed, the fact that large mammal Dinosaurs existed, completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution!!!!!!:eek:
You see that first paragraph, where you have "if", as in "if very large..."? Now, look at your second paragraph - no "if", but a sudden assumption that what was proposed in the first paragraph has magically become true in the intervening whitespace.
That's the sort of thing that makes me laugh - a complete inability to tell fact from fiction (*HTF). I have an absurdist sense of humour.
The other sort of thing that makes me laugh is the way you so completely fail to do basic research on the things you seem to think you have scientific objections to:
1. Evolution does not contain any notion of being "gradual and upwards" - it is thought to be punctuated rather than gradual, and contains no sense of "up".
2. The reason the dinosaurs were assumed originally to be reptiles was because they looked like reptiles (at the time palaeontology was dominated by a now-discarded paradigm whose name I will not mention out of politeness). I attended my first "warm-blooded dinosaurs" lecture about 20 years ago now.
3. Classifying dinosaurs as Reptilia is not the same as calling them reptiles.
4. You may want to read this, which suggests that dinosaurs were not in fact endothermic, but that the bigger ones simply lost heat so slowly they were effectively warm-blooded.
5. The question "where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this?" demonstrates an ignorance so profound as to induce mild hysteria, considering your claims to reject evolution on the basis of understanding and evidence. It could of course just be badly put - you have 'form' in both cases.
6. Mammals are in any case known to be coterminous with the dinosaurs. I am rather surprised you didn't know this, but I am also kindly, so I will throw you some information that suits what you are trying to pull here rather better than your current ludicrous claims:
"Evolutionary biology has long held that most early mammals were tiny shrew-like animals that fed on insects. However, in January 2005, the journal Nature reported the discovery of two 130 million year old fossils of Repenomamus, one more than a meter in length, the other having remains of a baby dinosaur in its stomach (Nature, Jan. 15, 2005). And the 2004 discovery in China of a 164 million year old 50 cm long aquatic mammal-like fossil of a thus far unknown species, dubbed Castorocauda, by a team led by Dr. Ji Qiang of Nanjing University and the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, was reported in February 2006 in the journal Science (Science, Feb. 24, 2006)"
So you see, there is no need for you to claim that the dinosaurs were actually mammals in order to have large mammals around at the time of the dinosaurs. Instead I give you (ta-da!) real large mammals around at the time of the dinosaurs. Some of them even ate dinosaurs...J C wrote:Scofflaw
I would deride your claims to scientific understanding,
but it would be superfluous,
…….your derision would actually be baseless.
……..just like your belief in Evolution!!!:eek:
Well, yes, the one is as baseless as the other, I'll admit...
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
J C wrote:'Macro-Evolution' of new higher levels of anatomical organisation at every supposed point between Pond Scum and Man is unobserved and invalid. It also breaches the Laws of Probability (without a massive input of intelligence).:D
You're still didging the question.
You're not saying what macro-evolution is.
You say that the record is incomplete. I agree - the record is incomplete.
But...if the record was complete, it would consist of evolutionary steps according to evolutionary theory.
Draw a clear line as to when, if observed, we can say "this is no longer evolution but macro-evolution". Explain how evolutionary theory relies on the existence of this macro-evolution concept.
Until you can do such things, your objection is non-relevant as you're merely saying evolutionary theory is wrong because something it doesn't predict and doesn't require hasn't been observed!
As for your mathematical impossibility argument.....we've been there. Your math is wrong as it relies on a number of fundamental misinterpretations and misassumptions.0 -
'Science' magazine has published its list of the ten most important advances of 2006. An old thread favorite has turned up at number seven:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6201373.stm (main article)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5080298.stm (Hybrid speciation demonstrated in the lab)
A little more than kin, and less than "Kind"? 0 -
J C wrote:It actually means what I said – that Speciation Research is currently underway and making great progress!!!!!:cool:
Ok, what are you researching. What is are the details of the theory that you are now attempting to confirm or deny?
You still have been completely unable to define what your Creationists theory actually details. You give out about evolutionary theory not being detailed enough to explain every aspect of the process, yet your competting theory doesn't explain any aspect of the process you assume is happening because of the Bible.
I mean, seriously, what part of this do you expect science to take seriously? You have not even defined what a "kind" is, or how kinds seperate into multiple species very quickly, or how they lose chromosomes within a few generations. None of this has ever been observed happening ever, and you have absolutely no theory on how you think it can happen.
To claim that you reject evolution because it is not a complete theory yet embrace this crap which isn't even a theory to being with is nonsense JC. You betray the fact that you are not approching the question of life on Earth from a scientific standpoint at all, but you are approching it, as everyone here already knew, purely from a religious stand point. Science, theory and evidence are irrelivent to you.J C wrote:So, my point that candidates for warm-blooded, quadrupedal, hairy, mammalian status include the Triceratops (the Dinosaur with the bony collar frills and the horns on its nose – which had the general body shape of a Rhinoceros) is valid.
The point you seem to staggeringly not getting is that while mammals are warm blooded and hairy, being warm blooded and hair does not make something a mammal.
I can't even figure out why you are trying to show that dinosaurs were mammals in the first place.0 -
-
-
Scofflaw
Well, "to name the only two areas of research" would be more accurate.
Creation Scientists operate across the ENTIRE spectrum of modern science from Astrophysics to Zoology and from Molecular Biology to Geology and Baraminology!!!:cool:
Originally Posted by J C
.…….because, if very large land MAMMALS existed supposedly 300 million years ago, then the next question is what creature did they evolve from and where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this.
Indeed, the fact that large mammal Dinosaurs existed, completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution
Scofflaw
You see that first paragraph, where you have "if", as in "if very large..."? Now, look at your second paragraph - no "if", but a sudden assumption that what was proposed in the first paragraph has magically become true in the intervening whitespace.
My ‘if’ in the first paragraph DIDN’T refer to the FACT that large mammal Dinosaurs existed – the ‘if’ referred to the invalid Evolutionist claim that these Dinosaurs existed supposedly 300 million years ago!!!
……and here is the thing – WHY did many scientists believe that these Dinosaurs were lizards, when even a cursory examination of their anatomies would show them to be four-legged, close-limbed, hair-follicled, warm-blooded Mammals???!!!
…….equally, WHY did many scientists believe that these Dinosaurs were alive 300 million years ago when they were obviously alive in recent historic time as proven by the articulating limbs and DNA containing blood-cells found in some Dinosaur fossils???
Scofflaw
That's the sort of thing that makes me laugh - a complete inability to tell fact from fiction
Could I suggest that it is the Evolutionists who have the difficulty in distinguishing between fact and fiction.:eek:
Scofflaw
1. Evolution does not contain any notion of being "gradual and upwards" - it is thought to be punctuated rather than gradual, and contains no sense of "up".
Fair enough, this definition of 'Evolution' would be accepted as valid by a Creation Scientist, who knows that post-Creation ‘Devolution’ was ‘horizontal’ or ‘downwards’ and involved rapid punctuated Speciation.
However, if you are an Evolutionist who believes that ‘Evolution’ accounts for the supposed spontaneous UPWARDS transition from ‘Muck to Man’ and all points in between your admission that “Evolution does not contain any notion of being "gradual and upwards"” is actually a very profound admission.
Indeed I would go so far as to say that it is an acceptance that gradual ‘Darwinian Evolution’ from primordial chemicals to Man is scientifically invalid.:eek:
Scofflaw
2. The reason the dinosaurs were assumed originally to be reptiles was because they looked like reptiles (at the time palaeontology was dominated by a now-discarded paradigm whose name I will not mention out of politeness). I attended my first "warm-blooded dinosaurs" lecture about 20 years ago now.
3. Classifying dinosaurs as Reptilia is not the same as calling them reptiles.
OK, so I’ll take this as an acceptance by you that some of the large Dinosaurs were MAMMALS!!:D
Scofflaw
4. You may want to read this, which suggests that dinosaurs were not in fact endothermic, but that the bigger ones simply lost heat so slowly they were effectively warm-blooded.
…..and how did the largest Dinosaurs GAIN heat – if they weren’t endothermic?
You see, here is the thing – there is a maximum size that all cold-blooded creatures can grow to, in order to efficiently acquire enough heat from the environment – and it is limited by their surface to volume ratio.
All smaller creatures have high surface to volume ratios, and larger reptiles use flattened body profiles, frills and ridges to increase their surface to volume ratios.
However, the largest Dinosars, like the Brachiosaurus had very large, smooth and rotund body profiles – with a consequent very SMALL surface to volume ratio – and therefore an inability to absorb sufficient heat from the environment - so they had to be warm-blooded, as a result!!!!.:eek:
Scofflaw
5. The question "where were the medium-sized mammals such as the Primates in all of this?" demonstrates an ignorance so profound as to induce mild hysteria, considering your claims to reject evolution on the basis of understanding and evidence.
6. Mammals are in any case known to be coterminous with the dinosaurs. I am rather surprised you didn't know this, but I am also kindly, so I will throw you some information that suits what you are trying to pull here rather better than your current ludicrous claims:
Both Mammals and Man were co-existent with Dinosaurs!!!
Scofflaw
"Evolutionary biology has long held that most early mammals were tiny shrew-like animals that fed on insects. However, in January 2005, the journal Nature reported the discovery of two 130 million year old fossils of Repenomamus, one more than a meter in length, the other having remains of a baby dinosaur in its stomach (Nature, Jan. 15, 2005). And the 2004 discovery in China of a 164 million year old 50 cm long aquatic mammal-like fossil of a thus far unknown species, dubbed Castorocauda, by a team led by Dr. Ji Qiang of Nanjing University and the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, was reported in February 2006 in the journal Science (Science, Feb. 24, 2006)"
So you see, there is no need for you to claim that the dinosaurs were actually mammals in order to have large mammals around at the time of the dinosaurs. Instead I give you (ta-da!) real large mammals around at the time of the dinosaurs. Some of them even ate dinosaurs...
I am fully aware of the latest findings that LARGE Mammals lived alongside and actually ate Dinosaurs !!
But, I am going further, and pointing to the fact that that some of the LARGEST Dinosaurs were THEMSELVES Mammals.
I am also pointing to the fact that because large mammal Dinosaurs existed, this completely invalidates the entire underlying thesis of gradual upwards Evolution ‘from reptilia to mammalia’ over supposedly the past 300 million years!!!!!!
So rather than tiny Shrews being the only Mammals present during the so-called ‘Age of the Dinosaurs’ – the largest Dinosaurs were themselves large MAMMALS!!!!
As I have said, this runs a ‘horse and four’ through the entire thesis of ‘Muck to Man Evolution’!!!!:)
Robin
'Science' magazine has published its list of the ten most important advances of 2006. An old thread favorite has turned up at number seven:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5080298.stm (Hybrid speciation demonstrated in the lab)
You’re doing my work for me, Robin!!!!!:)
Science magazine has just published a report of speciation in Butterflies – actually an example of instantaneous speciation in the Animal Kingdom, that matches the ‘Triangle of U’ Speciation within the Plant Kingdom!!!!
It again shows the mechanism of rapid Speciation in action, within Created Kinds, as predicted by the Creation Science Model of Devolutionary post-Creation Speciation !!!!:cool:
Wicknight
The point you seem to staggeringly not getting is that while mammals are warm blooded and hairy, being warm blooded and hair does not make something a mammal.
What hairy, warm-blooded, close-limbed, quadrupeds do you know of that AREN’T Mammals????
I am unaware of ANY creature with all of these characteristics that isn’t classified as a Mammal!!!!:eek:
bonkey
Not only that, but the concept of rapid speciation, up to and including chromosonal loss flies entirely in the face of previous "tightly specified" claims.
Remember those? The ones that claimed that if you play with a DNA design just the tiniest bit there is only one outcome....death.
And yet here we have rapid change on a massive scale...and lo and behold, there is no problem with "tight specification" whatsoever.
The rational conclusion is that the argument of "tight specification" has been accepted to be false and therefore discarded
Certainly not. Many creatures are BOTH tightly specified AND capable of the pre-ordained Devolution of their genomes.
In other words Critical Amino Acid Sequences exist – which produce the tightly specified protein structures that are observed to be required in living processes and instantaneous speciation is also observed to produce new plant and animal species RAPIDLY.
It’s analogous to an intelligently designed and tightly specified computer Operating System being able to roll out enormous varieties and combinations of pre-programmed screen saver and desktop designs – but if anybody decided to make random changes to the OS, the computer would rapidly crash!!!!!
So intelligently designed life and computers are BOTH capable of rapidly producing variety – but within very tightly specified parameters!!!
:eek: 0 -
J C wrote:I am unaware of ANY creature with all of these characteristics that isn’t classified as a Mammal!!!!
What you are unaware of could fill an aircraft hanger :rolleyes:J C wrote:Certainly not. Many creatures are BOTH tightly specified AND capable of the pre-ordained Devolution of their genomes.
In other words Critical Amino Acid Sequences exist – which produce the tightly specified protein structures that are observed to be required in living processes and instantaneous speciation is also observed to produce new plant and animal species RAPIDLY.
It’s analogous to an intelligently designed and tightly specified computer Operating System being able to roll out enormous varieties and combinations of pre-programmed screen saver and desktop designs – but if anybody decided to make random changes to the OS, the computer would rapidly crash!!!!!
So intelligently designed life and computers are BOTH capable of rapidly producing variety – but within very tightly specified parameters!!!
:eek:
Ok you have just totally contradicted yourself.
Are you saying that your so called "devolution" takes place on predetermined (by God) path ways?
If that is the case you have just totally contradicted about 100 of your previous posts. And you have also just taken away the main process you claim caused this devolution, that being isolation and mutation, which even creationists admit is random.
So one has to wonder at what point does this actually begin sounding like nonsense to you JC? I mean if you say one thing in one post, and then something completely different in another, do you not realise you are actually doing this.
Will the nonsense ever end :cool: :rolleyes: 
:eek: 
And we are still waiting for you to give a proper definition of a kind, or explain the biological process of how ANY of this is supposed to happen JC :rolleyes: The fact that you cannot do this means you might as well just be making all this up as you go along, which to be honest it looks like you are. I mean you could say ANYTHING happens.0 -
Scofflaw
Sigh. It's also been pointed out to you that biogenesis (origin of life) plays no part in the Theory of Evolution. Please try to keep up.
OK, so Evolutionists don't know how life arose in the first place (and the concept of replicating molecules doesn’t help much either).
Professor Dawkins admitted as much on his recent interview on BBC Northern Ireland at :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland...sequence.shtml
Creation Scientists know that life originated - through a once-off appliance of enormous intelligence and creative power by God.:D
Scofflaw
Again, there is no point in us trying to define for you a term that does not exist. ‘Chemicals to Man Evolution’ is another of your terms - you define it, and we will ridicule it.
OK, so Evolution cannot explain the enormous number of irreducibly complex anatomical and biochemical stages supposedly between Pond Scum and Man.
Creation Scientists again know that all Created Kinds were made fully functional during Creation Week.:D
Scofflaw
Evolution is "change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by changes in the allele frequencies of genes", and operates by a combination of genetic change and natural selection.
Creation Scientists would have little difficulty with ‘Evolution’ as you describe it – only they would call it ‘Devolution’ of the originally Created Kinds via Rapid Speciation.:eek:
I would also point out that your description of ‘Evolution’ as (a horizontal/downwards) "change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by changes in the allele frequencies of genes" – shows NO POTENTIAL to explain how Pond Scum could have ‘Evolved’ (upwards) into Man!!!!:eek:
Scofflaw
Science outgrew Creationism, but even Man had to start as Muck.
Science has certainly outgrown Evolution – and Man is the noble (but fallen) pinnacle of God’s Creation!!!:eek:
Pasteur proved scientifically that muck couldn’t spontaneously generate ‘lower life-forms’ like insects and maggots – and therefore I am always amazed that Evolutionists continue to cling to the even more ridiculous belief that muck could spontaneously generate ‘higher life-forms’ like Mankind instead!!!!:eek: :rolleyes:
Sounds like an a priori religious conviction to me!!!!:D 0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Robin
'Science' magazine has published its list of the ten most important advances of 2006. An old thread favorite has turned up at number seven:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5080298.stm (Hybrid speciation demonstrated in the lab)
……and it confirms what I have been saying – that speciation is very rapid or instantaneous – and hybridisation experiments proves that it is widespread within Created Kinds.
I quote from the above ‘Science Magazine’ article (emphasis mine):-
"Moreover, natural hybrids from San Cristobal, Venezuela, show wing patterns very similar to H. heurippa, further supporting the idea of a hybrid origin for this species."
In addition, there is growing circumstantial evidence for hybrid speciation in Ragoletis fruit flies, swordtail fish and African cichlid fish.
Some also suspect the American red wolf could be the product of hybridisation between coyotes and wolves.
The article on the Neanderthal DNA is also quite interesting at:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6146908.stm
It confirms that “Neanderthals came from a very small ancestral population” (shades of the Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam here!!!).
…….and it also confirms that “this stocky, muscular human species was our closest evolutionary relative” – not very surprising in view of the fact that the Neanderthals were actually FULLY Human!!!!:eek:
Writing in Nature journal, Professor Svante Paabo and colleagues describe how they recovered more than one million base-pairs - the building blocks of DNA - by directly reading the genetic sequence.
Sounds like a very FRESH Neanderthal sample to me!!!!:D
…..and finally ‘Science Magazine’ has honoured the discovery of a member of the ‘Crocodile Kind’ fossilised during Noah’s Flood. It’s perfectly preserved head was apparently discovered sticking out of the side of a cliff!!!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm
The fossil head showed no indication of the supposed massive crushing pressures that Evolutionary Geologists believe to have formed the sedimentary rock surrounding the fossil – and it actually looked like it had been buried underwater by being gently covered in a cement-like compound that had set so rapidly around it that it even preserved the imprint of it’s skin!!!!:D
Originally Posted by Wicknight
The point you seem to staggeringly not getting is that while mammals are warm blooded and hairy, being warm blooded and hair does not make something a mammal.
Original Reply by J C
What hairy, warm-blooded, close-limbed, quadrupeds do you know of that AREN’T Mammals????
I am unaware of ANY creature with all of these characteristics that isn’t classified as a Mammal!!!!
Wicknight
What you are unaware of could fill an aircraft hanger
I wasn’t claiming omniscience – but I am still awaiting a reply from you to my original question :-
“What hairy, warm-blooded, close-limbed, quadrupeds do you know of that AREN’T Mammals?”
Wicknight
Are you saying that your so called "devolution" takes place on predetermined (by God) path ways?
No. I am claiming that the CAPACITY to ‘Devolve’ was pre-programmed into the genomes by God. How such a capacity actually ‘Devolves’ is determined by random environmental and genetic factors.:cool:
Wicknight
If that is the case you have just totally contradicted about 100 of your previous posts. And you have also just taken away the main process you claim caused this devolution, that being isolation and mutation, which even creationists admit is random.
Not so. This ‘Devolution’ is the result of the interaction of the genome’s pre-programmed speciation/devolution POTENTIAL with random genetic and environmental factors such as isolation, mutation and frame-shifts.:cool:
Wicknight
I mean you could say ANYTHING happens.
Evolutionists believe that almost ANYTHING can happen – including the logical impossibility of muck ‘lifting itself up by its own bootstraps’ to become Man.
However, (because I’m not an Evolutionist) I don’t believe that ANYTHING can happen!!!
For example, the information dense, irreducibly complex genomes that we observe, could ONLY have been created by the appliance of enormous intelligence and creative power!!!:D
Happy Christmas everybody – and may the peace and love of Jesus Christ be with you all in the coming year.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement