Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Just Doesn't Make Sense


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
180 replies to this topic

#121 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 01:27 PM

What make you say that? What on earth did I write that gave you the imression that I was seeing you as "hostile"? You need to simmer down because you are taking things way too personally. I might disagree strongly about what you have written here, which is what you would expect in a forum like this, but I haven't made the slightest comment that reveals what I think about you personally and whether or not you are hostile.

If you want to know what I think about you then you only need to ask, and believe me, it is not entirely negative, but I am totally sure that I have not been obnoxious towards you or acted like a "poopy head"

Look, I have been involved in debates for years and years and I know how easy it is to pick up a "hostile" attitude just because of the nature of the debate. In other words I have made that mistake myself. Later on I have gone back and read my opponents posts without finding the hostility I thought was there.

I suggest you do the same. I have not been disrespectfull to you. Disagreement is not disrespect, and as you undoubtedly have seen in one of the other threads, you need to take a few steps back, take a deep breath and approach this a little differtently. This is a HOT debate. I have been cursed at, had countless vulgarities thrown at me, had my dead mother mocked by an athiest/evolutionist that I opened myself up to, and have constantly been called an ignorant idiot by evolutionists despite the fact that I have honestly tried to investigate this debate as much as my free time has allowed me to do. Ignorant people by definition don't do those kinds of things.

Most of the time I have not been equally insulting as those who oppose me, and I suggest you clothe yourself in a similar attitude.

I don't see how you can read me saying I'm not being hostile toward you and take that as "I am very hostile toward you".

As far as what gave the impression you were being defensive, I dunno there was just something about your post that gave me the impression you were getting worked up over things.

You might as well have been writing all in caps.

As for the poopy head thing... ::sigh:: Go back and re-read my comment, I wasn't calling you a name...

As far as nasty comments from atheists, I'm sorry some people are - well, something that rhymes with abs wholes.

If it makes you feel any better I've gotten plenty of hatred from fundamentalists, including being kicked hard when putting myself out there to try to make someone feel better and having my comments used to publicly mock me..

#122 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 01:33 PM

This is the closest thing to 'evolution' they will ever get:Posted Image Notice the variation within the kind of organism displayed...but all still flies.

But if they think they


can come up with something like this: Posted Image then let them show us. But the truth is that it is not just the change from one type of organism to another they need to demonstrate; they need to prove it by revealing a true genetic change from one type to another.

This is a very old argument and it's very ignorant. You and a bat are both the same "kind" of animal, you're both mammals, you both share a huge percentage of your DNA and physiology (a bat's skeleton is virtually the same as yours, it's wings are just elongated fingers on a five-finger hand of the same configuration as yours) etc. If a population of bats turned into a population of cats in the laboratory it would not constitute an entirely different "kind".

That is because "kind" is a word from the bible which has no specific biological (or biblical) meaning. In some sense every form of life is the same "kind" as every other form of life. Which is of course completely consistent with universal common ancestry.

#123 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:27 PM

1. This is a very old argument

2. and it's very ignorant.

3. You and a bat are both the same "kind" of animal, you're both mammals,

4, you both share a huge percentage of your DNA and physiology (a bat's skeleton is virtually the same as yours, it's wings are just elongated fingers on a five-finger hand of the same configuration as yours) etc.

5. If a population of bats turned into a population of cats in the laboratory it would not constitute an entirely different "kind".



1, Argument from age, logical fallacy

2. Personal bias for or against the argument and its counter claims

3. Kind isn't in reference to the higher taxa of animals, its generally believed to be in refence to genus or family... Whereas you argument here hinges on attributing kind to Class... Two or three orders higher than what most Creationists believe kind attributes to.

4. True however such is merely an observation, not evidence.

5. Yes it would, however the problem here is that the situation you are claiming has never occured...
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#124 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 15 November 2012 - 05:43 PM

As far as what gave the impression you were being defensive, I dunno there was just something about your post that gave me the impression you were getting worked up over things.

You might as well have been writing all in caps.


Well, most people seem to understand that WRITING IN ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING!!!,... where as writing a few words here and there that are underlined or in CAPS signify emphasis. I like to emphasize things sometimes! Posted Image But if it upsets you I will try not to emphasize so much.

#125 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 15 November 2012 - 08:57 PM

Well, most people seem to understand that WRITING IN ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING!!!,... where as writing a few words here and there that are underlined or in CAPS signify emphasis. I like to emphasize things sometimes! Posted Image But if it upsets you I will try not to emphasize so much.

It doesn't "upset" me, it just seems defensive and argumentative.

#126 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 10:15 PM

I like to use emphasis since in my years here I find that fairly often evoluionists miss-read, forget or plain ignore parts of ones posts, so emphasising on the parts they are lacking is handy.

#127 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 15 November 2012 - 11:12 PM

1, Argument from age, logical fallacy

2. Personal bias for or against the argument and its counter claims

3. Kind isn't in reference to the higher taxa of animals, its generally believed to be in refence to genus or family... Whereas you argument here hinges on attributing kind to Class... Two or three orders higher than what most Creationists believe kind attributes to.

4. True however such is merely an observation, not evidence.

5. Yes it would, however the problem here is that the situation you are claiming has never occured...


Right, Gilbo.

He doesn't know what he's talking about and he still hasn't given us a shred of evidence for any evolutionary change from one classification of plant/animal to another.

Notice that he didn't even mention the 'evolution' of the fly. But what else can he do since all the observed changes resulted in..........(guess what?).....flies?

Let him (or any other skeptic on EFF) find an 'ancestor' for the ealiest known bat (i.e. Icaronycteris dated at approx. 55 mya) if he/they can even find one. Then let him/they tell us what the bat evolved into since that period (55 mya).

Posted Image

The so-called 'evolution of the bat'. Really? It isn't too hard for even non-experts to figure out that at near the mid-point of this 'change' from the rodent-like creature to the fully developed bat that it does not have front paws any longer so it can't crawl. but it cannot fly either because its wings are not sufficiently developed. So how would such a creature survive? Furthermore...like all mammals it had to 'evolve' mammary glands for the nourishment its offspring to survive. So what did the offspring survive on without the milk from those mammary glands being not yet developed for several million yrs?

I might also point out here that in the artist conception of the evolution of the bat as seen above no one has ever found the stages between the rodent-like creature at bottom and the fully developed bat in the fossil record. Such fossils do not exist.

It's a joke. The whole evolutionary scheme of things is such a huge joke that it's really hardly worth debating them in the first place. I only do so in the hope that some independent reader who is now like I once was...curious to know the read truth in the matter and will see it clearly once that truth is brought out. May it be so for many.

#128 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 15 November 2012 - 11:29 PM

Right, Gilbo.

He doesn't know what he's talking about and he still hasn't given us a shred of evidence for any evolutionary change from one classification of plant/animal to another.

Notice that he didn't even mention the 'evolution' of the fly. But what else can he do since all the observed changes resulted in..........(guess what?).....flies?

Let him (or any other skeptic on EFF) find an 'ancestor' for the ealiest known bat (i.e. Icaronycteris dated at approx. 55 mya) if he/they can even find one. Then let him/they tell us what the bat evolved into since that period (55 mya).

Posted Image

The so-called 'evolution of the bat'. Really? It isn't too hard for even non-experts to figure out that at near the mid-point of this 'change' from the rodent-like creature to the fully developed bat that it does not have front paws any longer so it can't crawl. but it cannot fly either because its wings are not sufficiently developed. So how would such a creature survive? Furthermore...like all mammals it had to 'evolve' mammary glands for the nourishment its offspring to survive. So what did the offspring survive on without the milk from those mammary glands being not yet developed for several million yrs?

I might also point out here that in the artist conception of the evolution of the bat as seen above no one has ever found the stages between the rodent-like creature at bottom and the fully developed bat in the fossil record. Such fossils do not exist.

It's a joke. The whole evolutionary scheme of things is such a huge joke that it's really hardly worth debating them in the first place. I only do so in the hope that some independent reader who is now like I once was...curious to know the read truth in the matter and will see it clearly once that truth is brought out. May it be so for many.


The funny thing is, the evolution of a bat is even more complicated than that. The orientation of the legs is rotated 180 degrees where the knees bend forward instead of backwards (which conveniently allows them to hang upside down but curl forward while hanging). How do you make that conversion in steps without losing functionality?

#129 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:49 AM

The Ceolocanth family only goes back to the Devonian (400 mya). The cambrian and pre-cambraian are older than that (around 500mya).


Not that I believe any of that, but so what?? You made the point that the cambrian rabbit didn't need to be a rabbit, but now you are trying to apply the condition that whatever it "is" HAS to be found in the cambrian, otherwise all bets are off. You might as well have suck with the rabbit! Ooparts are ooparts. Or is falsifying evolution restricted to the cambrian and involve adopting the evolutionist assumption as to what the cambrian is?

The cambrian fossils don't represent a deep-sea bottom of the ocean habitat. In-fact they frequently indicate a shoreline environment where many fish, birds, mammals etc. would have been able to live. As an example, stromatolites are produced by mats of photosynthetic organisms which means fossil stromatolites would have been formed in water shallow enough for sunlight to reach bottom.


How do we know exactly where the "cambrian" stops or starts? Dating methods that you claim are independent of fossils have been shown to be unreliable and yet you are trying to tell me how far it extends.

Just as has been pointed out many times in this forum, dating of layers and rocks is circular reasoning. Radiometric dates that don't line up with the evolutionist assumption are considered incorrect and rejected.

Morphology (size, fin/skeletal arrangement) and habitat differences (salt vs. fresh). The criterion of reproductive isolation is not useful for fossil classification for obvious reasons.


Well, that kind of disqualifies your point. The "criterion of reproduction" is part of the definition of species, is it not?

#130 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:53 AM

It doesn't "upset" me, it just seems defensive and argumentative.


Don't be such a hypocrite. Your comments are riddled with defensiveness and argumentivity, WITH or without the caps or underlining. The very fact that you bring it up at all show how defensive and argumentative you are.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#131 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 16 November 2012 - 03:59 AM

I like to use emphasis since in my years here I find that fairly often evoluionists miss-read, forget or plain ignore parts of ones posts, so emphasising on the parts they are lacking is handy.


Exactly, sometimes important things can be missed because someone simply skims thought what is written. I often don't have time to read everything that is written here, and I am sure that goes for quite a lot of people, so I like to emphasize when I feel something needs special attention.

#132 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:23 AM

Right, Gilbo.

He doesn't know what he's talking about and he still hasn't given us a shred of evidence for any evolutionary change from one classification of plant/animal to another.

Notice that he didn't even mention the 'evolution' of the fly. But what else can he do since all the observed changes resulted in..........(guess what?).....flies?

Let him (or any other skeptic on EFF) find an 'ancestor' for the ealiest known bat (i.e. Icaronycteris dated at approx. 55 mya) if he/they can even find one. Then let him/they tell us what the bat evolved into since that period (55 mya).

Posted Image

The so-called 'evolution of the bat'. Really? It isn't too hard for even non-experts to figure out that at near the mid-point of this 'change' from the rodent-like creature to the fully developed bat that it does not have front paws any longer so it can't crawl. but it cannot fly either because its wings are not sufficiently developed. So how would such a creature survive? Furthermore...like all mammals it had to 'evolve' mammary glands for the nourishment its offspring to survive. So what did the offspring survive on without the milk from those mammary glands being not yet developed for several million yrs?

I might also point out here that in the artist conception of the evolution of the bat as seen above no one has ever found the stages between the rodent-like creature at bottom and the fully developed bat in the fossil record. Such fossils do not exist.

It's a joke. The whole evolutionary scheme of things is such a huge joke that it's really hardly worth debating them in the first place. I only do so in the hope that some independent reader who is now like I once was...curious to know the read truth in the matter and will see it clearly once that truth is brought out. May it be so for many.

A bat's wing is just an arm and hand almost identical to yours in terms of skeletal configuration with longer digits and skin between the digits (some even have claws). Why should that be if it was only ever a wing? And the oldest fossil ever found of a bat has longer limbs than any other known bat (suggesting a greater reliance on them for climbing) and claws on more of it's digits, suggesting a closer relationship to a flightless animal.

http://arstechnica.c...tion-to-flight/

Bear in mind a pseudo-wing can be used for more than one purpose, such as staying warm:

http://images.scienc...94059-large.jpg

Or keeping one's offspring warm.

Or gliding out of a tree when one falls or to escape predators, which several flightless mammals do, like "flying" squirrels.

Every intermediate has to be fully functional, but not at the same tasks, many traits in nature have dual purposes - how many animals have legs that also double as fins for instance?

It's silly to suggest that a bat at some stage would only be able to walk or fly but not both when bats never lost their ability to walk around on land:



Their wings are wings/legs the same way a seal's fins are fins/legs.

#133 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:27 AM

Oh and as far as mammary glands, lots of species feed their young without them, the idea that this is impossible in earlier species is just an arbitrary claim with no logic. Oh and platypuses' lineage dates back to the era of proto-mammals and they have many proto-mammalian and pseudo-reptillian traits, including excreting milk through patches of skin like sweat but having no nipples.

#134 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:28 AM

Don't be such a hypocrite. Your comments are riddled with defensiveness and argumentivity, WITH or without the caps or underlining. The very fact that you bring it up at all show how defensive and argumentative you are.

I didn't attack you for being defensive, I simply said there's no reason for you to be since I was not attacking you (or your position).

Stop turning everything into a fight.

#135 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:38 AM

The claim about bats having their knees bent backwards appears to not only be not true, but apparently no species actually have backwards knees:

http://wiki.answers....al_is_backwards

I looked up skeletons of animals like storks and this is true, their knees are simply hidden within or near their bodies.

Trust the experts at AiG for accurate, well-researched information that can, as always, be debunked in a 2 second google search.

#136 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 06:39 AM

The funny thing is, the evolution of a bat is even more complicated than that. The orientation of the legs is rotated 180 degrees where the knees bend forward instead of backwards (which conveniently allows them to hang upside down but curl forward while hanging). How do you make that conversion in steps without losing functionality?

See the above comment.

#137 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:00 AM

It doesn't bend backward per se, since in cats etc the "backwards" knee is like the bend of the ankle (apprantly, though this is a stretch of the imagination... and is purely borne from an evolutionary idea, however I'll run with it for now), however it does raise an interesting question...

Why are do animals "tip toe" and humans have "flat feet"... What would be the selection pressure for such a thing? Considering that tiptoe would give faster movement. Therefore having "flat feet" would be seen as a disadvantage to the human...

#138 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:39 AM

The claim about bats having their knees bent backwards appears to not only be not true, but apparently no species actually have backwards knees:

http://wiki.answers....al_is_backwards

I looked up skeletons of animals like storks and this is true, their knees are simply hidden within or near their bodies.

Trust the experts at AiG for accurate, well-researched information that can, as always, be debunked in a 2 second google search.


Really? Do you just google until you hit something that seems to have anything to do with the subject. Do you even comprehend what it's talking about. The link you provided has NOTHING to do with the orientation of the legs of a bat. They're talking about the so called "hock joint" of ungulates and other animals, which is the tarsus (ankle), and the "knee" on the front leg is the carpus (wrist). Again, has NOTHING to do with the orientation of the legs of a bat. Or did you just figure the link I provided was irrelevant? Learn your anatomy from something more than just google.

#139 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:06 AM

The bat video he provided is a fully developed ('evolved') bat!

At least from his perspective.

Not only so but the question about nourishment for the bats offspring BEFORE the mammary glands developed goes unanswered. But that problem goes for all other mammals that provide milk for their young. How did the offspring possibly survive before those mammary glands supposdedly evolved?

So we have bats in the fossil record. We have rats in the fossil record; but no bat/rats!

Posted Image We'd sooner find bat-winged monkeys in the fossil record than a true transition between bats and rodents...of any kind.

#140 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:23 AM

Really? Do you just google until you hit something that seems to have anything to do with the subject. Do you even comprehend what it's talking about. The link you provided has NOTHING to do with the orientation of the legs of a bat. They're talking about the so called "hock joint" of ungulates and other animals, which is the tarsus (ankle), and the "knee" on the front leg is the carpus (wrist). Again, has NOTHING to do with the orientation of the legs of a bat. Or did you just figure the link I provided was irrelevant? Learn your anatomy from something more than just google.

The first thing I googled was pictures of bat skeletons, none of which appeared to have "backwards knees" and if anything, appeared to have the orientation of someone with their legs bowed out or splayed and either in a "split" position or slightly forward (not backward). Then I googled the backward knee thing and found out it doesn't exist.

No need to get pissy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users