cyara

this is my last post here: moderators, I ask you to delete my account. Goodbye then. This has convinced me that creationists are not interested in holding honest debates, and that the moderators support this bull (word filtered). I will leave you to your hobbies.

Show me 1 quote of me where i state that "observing or measuring" ARE an experiment. (not a quote where i say observing is done with experiments, that is NOT THE SAME) failure to do so will proof you are deliberately misrepresenting my posts.

Show me 1 quote of me where i state that "observing or measuring" ARE an experiment. (not a quote where i say observing is done with experiments, that is NOT THE SAME) failure to do so will proof you are deliberately misrepresenting my posts. Show me 1 quote of me where I state that Tiktaalik is the only ancestor of tetrapods. the footprints in poland can simply be the result of another transitional that existed before tiktaalik. failure to do so will proof you are deliberately misrepresenting my posts. im done wth you gilbo, your dishonest and fallacious posts are just a wast of my time.

Authority fallacy. Equivocation fallacy. It is not because some obscure scientists have an own opinion on the definition of the theory of evolution. that therefore their definition is the right definition. I respect this forum's rule not to equivocate micro and macro evolution. Thus I ask you to respect and not equivocate evolution neither.

debating micro and macro-evolution is taboo on this forum for some reason. this is just trying to bait me into breaking a rule. A: the origin of life is not debated here, please ask for this in the relevant forum topic. B: debating micro and macro-evolution is taboo on this forum for some reason. this is just trying to bait me into breaking a rule.

Al the time. for example: the absolute basis, the fact that the universe exists is only an assumption, there is no absolute proof of that.

Enoch, you are still on ignore, no need to reply.

you said: Then by all means please find some scientifically tenable support and post it for the rest of us. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/422058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Abstract Several times throughout their radiation fish have evolved either lungs or swim bladders as gasâ€holding structures. Lungs and swim bladders have different ontogenetic origins and can be used either for buoyancy or as an accessory respiratory organ. Therefore, the presence of airâ€filled bladders or lungs in different groups of fishes is an example of convergent evolution. We propose that air breathing could not occur without the presence of a surfactant system and suggest that this system may have originated in epithelial cells lining the pharynx. Here we present new data on the surfactant system in swim bladders of three teleost fish (the airâ€breathing pirarucu Arapaima gigas and tarpon Megalops cyprinoides and the nonâ€airâ€breathing New Zealand snapper Pagrus auratus). We determined the presence of surfactant using biochemical, biophysical, and morphological analyses and determined homology using immunohistochemical analysis of the surfactant proteins (SPs). We relate the presence and structure of the surfactant system to those previously described in the swim bladders of another teleost, the goldfish, and those of the airâ€breathing organs of the other members of the Osteichthyes, the more primitive airâ€breathing Actinopterygii and the Sarcopterygii. Snapper and tarpon swim bladders are lined with squamous and cuboidal epithelial cells, respectively, containing membraneâ€bound lamellar bodies. Phosphatidylcholine dominates the phospholipid (PL) profile of lavage material from all fish analyzed to date. The presence of the characteristic surfactant lipids in pirarucu and tarpon, lamellar bodies in tarpon and snapper, SPâ€B in tarpon and pirarucu lavage, and SPs (A, B, and D) in swim bladder tissue of the tarpon provide strong evidence that the surfactant system of teleosts is homologous with that of other fish and of tetrapods. This study is the first demonstration of the presence of SPâ€D in the airâ€breathing organs of nonmammalian species and SPâ€B in actinopterygian fishes. The extremely high cholesterol/disaturated PL and cholesterol/PL ratios of surfactant extracted from tarpon and pirarucu bladders and the poor surface activity of tarpon surfactant are characteristics of the surfactant system in other fishes. Despite the paraphyletic phylogeny of the Osteichthyes, their surfactant is uniform in composition and may represent the vertebrate protosurfactant you said: I'm simply asking you to provide support for your "That is why I trust the experts on how lungs in this case have evolved." statement. debate 102: Let's update the arguments made: my argument: That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved) my support : 1)It makes way more sense to me then an invisible force that created them out of nothing (aka god) 2)as an example of some scientifically tenable support see above article. your conterargument #1: So you prefer to believe that lungs arose by natural processes despite the fact that natural processes have a destructive effect. your support : 1. The Law of Biogenesis. 2. The Laws of Thermodynamics. 3. The Laws of Information. in detail: 1. The Law of Biogenesis. The Law of Biogenesis is totally irrelevant to evolutionary processes, since evolution acts on the presupposition of the existence of life. How that life came to be is of no consequence to evolution's validity. you said: Failure to provide a scientifically tenable explanation for the origin of life is your 1st problem. the origin of life is not debated here, please ask for this in the relevant forumtopic. 2. The Laws of Thermodynamics. I fail to see how the laws of thermodynamica has any relevance with evolutionary processes. please explain. you said: Failure to explain how a lung can increase in Specified Complexity contrary to the 2LOT is your 2nd problem. Why should i explain that? I did not bring that up. it is not up to me to explain that.. However YOU brought the law of thermodynamics in this debate. The explanation therefore lies with YOU. 3. The Laws of Information. I fail to see how the laws of informatica has any relevance with evolutionary processes. please explain. you said: Failure to explain the origin of the information required to increase or reorganize the lungs Specified Complexity from "simple" to "complex" is your 3rd problem. Why should i explain that? I did not bring that up. it is not up to me to explain that.. However YOU brought the laws of informatica in this debate. The explanation therefore lies with YOU. note: You still did not provide support for the fact that natural processes have a destructive effect. Above details does not explain that. Your counterargument #2: the evolution of the lung when natural laws demonstrate such to be physically impossible. your support: ?????????????????????????? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your argument: Fact is, evolutionists don't have a leg to stand on scientifically. your support: ???????????????????????? My counterargument: that is not a fact. My support: That is an opinion you said: Then please post some scientifically tenable evidence to demonstrate I'm wrong. I don't have to demonstrate you are wrong. You have to demonstrate you are right: the '??????????????????????' ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

debate 101: I give an argument, which I provide support for.That is my burden of proof. You give a counterargument which you provide support for. That is your burden of proof (not mine) example#1 my argument: That is why I trust the experts (on how lungs in this case have evolved) my support : It makes way more sense to me then an invisible force that created them out of nothing (aka god) your conterargument: So you prefer to believe that lungs arose by natural processes despite the fact that natural processes have a destructive effect. your support : ????????????????????? example#2 Your argument: The last time I looked things fall apart, they do not fall together. your support: ??????????????????? my counterargument: Things do not always fall apart, but can fall together my support: How do you think (for example) H2O is forming? from what element did it "fall apart"? No, H2O is being formed by elements (H and O) by falling "together". if you cant even grasp this basic rule of a debate, I am just wasting my time with you and won't reply further. ps: please fill in the "???????????????"

Please learn the rules of a debate if you want to debate.

reported for deliberate quotemining, even after the author explicitly gave a clarification (see post #364)