Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
usafjay1976

Atheists: Is Murder Acceptable With You?

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

Blitzking: So we are to believe that over the range of "500 Million Years", as the jellyfish was remaining unchanged, A Fish, living in the EXACT SAME ENVIRONMENT, was evolving into a Man?

 

Exactly, there's no reason to accept the double standard except; "believe it because we believe evolution happened", revealing that macro evolution for that scenario is nothing more than an argument from credulity; "I believe it did happen that way against any facts by faith, therefore it did."

 

(read my signature, it will tell you.) :D

 

Fish and Jellyfish might not have the same genetic flexibility?

 

To explain, imagine you are playing scrabble. You have just drawn a set of letters in front of you. Depending on the board state, some words can be formed. 

Your opponents play, the board changes. For some sets, words that were available no longer are or new words can now be formed, for some other sets, nothing important changed and the best words can still be placed. Its similar to explain your jellyfish "problem" as to why some species appear to change more then others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any evidence fish changed Fjuri, nor jellyfish. I see both appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. The circumstantial evidence for the the evolution of fish into amphibians was dealt with in the transitionals topic, IMHO, with Bonedigger's expert analysis of the bones, that showed the evolution story for fish to amphibian evolution is fishy.

 

:)

 

Now if you want to believe it happened, that two organisms, fish and jellyfish, both optimally designed, one staying the same forever, the other becoming men, I'm fine if you choose to believe that story that depends on a double standard

 

(message one)

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6639-is-evolution-plausible/&do=findComment&comment=133215

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The true issue is circular reasoning. You guys only infer that the fish wasn't optimal and had to evolved, because the evolution story says it did, but you infer the jellyfish stable because you have to.

 

Think of it this way; "evolution is what drove fish to adapt and come onto land according to the story of evolution.....and look here is a jellyfish unchanged so why is the jellyfish not evolving? ....Because evolution drove fish to adapt and come on to land not jellyfish."

 

It might be tricky to spot the circularity so here is an easy example;

 

"I gave left two small pizzas on a table and I believe the fattest man in Europe ate them as he was in the room"

Objection; "but there is one pizza left, why didn't he eat it if he is greedy?"

"Because he ate the other one, because he is the fattest man in Europe."

 

(notice the claim is merely REPEATED, but by which measure do we test if each hypothesis is true? We have to GRANT, circularly, that each claim is true, in order to accept each claim is true.)

 

This circular reasoning doesn't work because it could prop up ANY claim.

 

EXAMPLE;

 

"Mike claimed to be the best boxer on earth. I came into the room and the world heavyweight champion was on the canvas, and mike was there, therefore mike knocked him out."

"But how can you know that?"

"Because mike claimed to be the best boxer on earth?"

"But how do you know he is?"

"Because the heavyweight champion is on the canvas."

"But how do you know mike done it?"

"Because mike claims to be the best boxer on earth."

"But mike is 9 stone, and the champ is three times his weight, it's not physically possible."

"but he's on the canvas, therefore it must be possible." (like with the fish...the fish and jellyfish would likely both be able to survive without evolving but it must have happened with the fish because evolution says it did.)

 

(think about it for a while, fish are indestructible and fast moving, if anything it's likely that fast moving fish could survive and remain unchanged by evolution more so than jellyfish, there is no real reason to infer it except that evolution says it happened that way.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The true issue is circular reasoning. You guys only infer that the fish wasn't optimal and had to evolved, because the evolution story says it did, but you infer the jellyfish stable because you have to.

 

Think of it this way; "evolution is what drove fish to adapt and come onto land according to the story of evolution.....and look here is a jellyfish unchanged so why is the jellyfish not evolving? ....Because evolution drove fish to adapt and come on to land not jellyfish."

 

It might be tricky to spot the circularity so here is an easy example;

 

"I gave left two small pizzas on a table and I believe the fattest man in Europe ate them as he was in the room"

Objection; "but there is one pizza left, why didn't he eat it if he is greedy?"

"Because he ate the other one, because he is the fattest man in Europe."

 

(notice the claim is merely REPEATED, but by which measure do we test if each hypothesis is true? We have to GRANT, circularly, that each claim is true, in order to accept each claim is true.)

 

This circular reasoning doesn't work because it could prop up ANY claim.

 

EXAMPLE;

 

"Mike claimed to be the best boxer on earth. I came into the room and the world heavyweight champion was on the canvas, and mike was there, therefore mike knocked him out."

"But how can you know that?"

"Because mike claimed to be the best boxer on earth?"

"But how do you know he is?"

"Because the heavyweight champion is on the canvas."

"But how do you know mike done it?"

"Because mike claims to be the best boxer on earth."

"But mike is 9 stone, and the champ is three times his weight, it's not physically possible."

"but he's on the canvas, therefore it must be possible." (like with the fish...the fish and jellyfish would likely both be able to survive without evolving but it must have happened with the fish because evolution says it did.)

 

(think about it for a while, fish are indestructible and fast moving, if anything it's likely that fast moving fish could survive and remain unchanged by evolution more so than jellyfish, there is no real reason to infer it except that evolution says it happened that way.)

..

Yup.. A lot of very important intermediate steps are either forgotten or purposely ignored.. According to the "TOE" Both Fish AND Jellyfish evolved from a small ameoba or microbiotic form.. Notice that when I brought up "Living Fossils" Wibble conveniently mentioned the jellyfish and accused me of "Cherry Picking " Living Fossils as he proceded to selectively ignore the Coelacanth, (Another FISH!) as well as the Horshoe crab, Nautilus, Ants, Alligators, Cockroaches, Trilobites, And Many More... All happened to find their Niche and decided to stop evolving while living at exactly the same place and the exact same time that worms were turning into a Man...

 

A Fairy Tale is more believable.... At least in the Fairytale, the Frog got a kiss from a princess before turning into a prince instead of just "Deep Time"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wibble: You have nothing equivalent to that 1998 coin though do you ? Why does the evidence of red blood cells trump multiple independent radiometric dating methods for example when we know the rate of organic decay is hugely variable depending on conditions and we know radioisotope decay rates are incredibly stable ?

 

Your supposed evidences of youth that you glean from the pages of CMI are wafer thin. You haven't looked at them critically to see if they stand up to scrutiny, you just accept them.

 

 

Well, to answer your question, like I said to Norman, because argon imbibed by phenocrysts during heating was proven to have inflated the argon in rocks, proving that the inflated date meant more argon had contaminated the rock than the isotope decay rate would predict. 

 

Claiming all radiometric samples are contaminated by excess daughter isotopes isn't positive evidence of youth Mike. It's just an unsupported assertion against the multiple methods and an insinuation that all the scientists involved are incompetent idiots.

 

How you can look at the Hawaiian island graph in that other thread for example, and conclude random contamination would produce such a close correlation shows how wilfully blind you are.

 

 

 

 

Wibble: Keep looking for that fossil bird in the Carboniferous (or modern fish in the Cambrian etc., etc, etc.) because that would falsify it. They are never found though are they and you have no valid reason for that.

 

I do, and i've explained it easily several times. When are you going to get some fresh arguments, if your arguments were underwear they'd be rather ripe by now I imagine.  :rotfl3:

 

Ha ha. No it's your argument that stinks. Explaining away the clear pattern in the fossil record by means of ecological zonation is just pants.

 

To imagine there were no fish in the Cambrian seas alongside those jellyfish is just special pleading. And to pretend that these tremendous fountains of the deep rising up and surging over the land wouldn't mix up marine organisms with mammals, angiosperms and the rest is delusional.

 

Do you think when fish finally appear in the fossil record that they are all just like the ones you find today and there has been stasis ever since ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you'll find Wibble is highly selective, BK.

 

I can think of many living fossils myself, fairly recent ones for example there's the funnel-nose ray and the pelican spider, both very "diversified" so more, "modern" in evolutionary-terms, yet they are found very early on, already fully diverged and evolved. Grass is already diverse and found with the dinos, no sign of evo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Wibble: Claiming all radiometric samples are contaminated by excess daughter isotopes isn't positive evidence of youth Mike. It's just an unsupported assertion against the multiple methods and an insinuation that all the scientists involved are incompetent idiots.

 

How you can look at the Hawaiian island graph in that other thread for example, and conclude random contamination would produce such a close correlation shows how wilfully blind you are.

 

I didn't claim that.

 

As for the correlation, Blitzking mentioned some correlations too, which you also willfully ignore, such as the carbon dating matching with the young tissue to corroborate youth. You also have to ignore the correlations for the data that shows such a close match from the zircons as I shown. It's hypocritical to call me willfully blind when you do the exact same things I do for your evo-god.

 

 

 

Wibble: Do you think when fish finally appear in the fossil record that they are all just like the ones you find today and there has been stasis ever since ?

 

Erm...yes - I shown you a video in the island thread and Dr Bergman actually shows specific species of fish, their fossil next to a picture of a living one. Lol. And didn't you hear what Blitz said, he gave an example of a fish that has remain unchanged for hundreds of fictional millions of years - the coelecanth. There are more on Bergman's video - I shown you a funnel-nose ray which is highly diverged and is identical, jellyfish are fish by the way, and they are identical. If you're going to be this far off the mark you should at least watch the video and then you won't ask for things which you should know exist and can be found in the plenty. Isn't that, "willfully blind"? :rolleyes:

 

And I love the way you use the epithet, "finally", as though fish are absent except in the top layer when they have found fish now in the cambrian where previously silent. Have you forgotten that if we don't assume evolution that all layers are the same age, so your bias depends on the assumption that the Pre-Cambrian is the oldest but from our perspective the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian are no older than say the Triassic and Jurassic. So then it is a red-herring to say, "you must show X species in this specific layer", I don't have to - I only have to show it as a fossil, even if it is only 5 million years old according to evo-age, because from our flood model, a 5 million year old fish fossil is the same age as a 500 million year old one. (I must have told you this about ten times now, have you got memory problems old man) :D:P

 

(Your posts are descending into personal attacks again, I notice this happens when you don't have any come-backs. I gave the chart for the argument from silence and you are now silent, apart from the personal attacks so you can save face. One last hurrah eh - with a lot of rhetorical accusations, but it won't wash, it's all to save face, every time you lose you get grumpy and start saying I'm a so and so...is that all you can come up with?)

 

(not that this matters, but they have found fish scales in the cambrian; They have also found pollen in the pre-Cambrian at Roraima, and unbreakable case where contamination wasn't an option, it remained a mystery to evolutionists, they never found an answer for it, but angiosperms shouldn't have been present in pre-Cambrian times so it's identical to finding a human in the Jurassic, think of it this way, knowing you Wibble, if the shoe was on the other foot and we had found a human in the jurassic and not found the pollen you would no doubt be presently asking me on this forum as we speak, to show you some pollen in the pre-Cambrian in order to refute evolution.  :rotfl3: 

 

http://creation.com/fish-scales-in-the-cambrian

 

http://creation.com/fish-scales-in-the-cambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you'll find Wibble is highly selective, BK.

 

I can think of many living fossils myself, fairly recent ones for example there's the funnel-nose ray and the pelican spider, both very "diversified" so more, "modern" in evolutionary-terms, yet they are found very early on, already fully diverged and evolved. Grass is already diverse and found with the dinos, no sign of evo.

Yes.. Very selective indeed... While he accuses others of "Cherry Picking" LOL

 

"Claiming all radiometric samples are contaminated by excess daughter isotopes isn't positive evidence of youth Mike."

 

Which is EXACLTY what Evotionists MUST DO by requirement or give up the ghost! http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

 

 

"Explaining away the clear pattern in the fossil record by means of ecological zonation is just pants."

 

While pretending that Prominent Evolutionary Paleontologists NEVER said things like this...

 

 

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

 

‘Yet Gould [stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.†I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument..

 

 

 

“The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances, no one any longer believes in it….Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but which they maintain for their people.†Paul Lemoine. Encyclopedie Francaise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any evidence fish changed Fjuri, nor jellyfish. I see both appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. The circumstantial evidence for the the evolution of fish into amphibians was dealt with in the transitionals topic, IMHO, with Bonedigger's expert analysis of the bones, that showed the evolution story for fish to amphibian evolution is fishy.

Which wasn't the argument I refuted. Goalposts -> that way.

 

 

Now if you want to believe it happened, that two organisms, fish and jellyfish, both optimally designed, one staying the same forever, the other becoming men, I'm fine if you choose to believe that story that depends on a double standard

 

(message one)

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/6639-is-evolution-plausible/&do=findComment&comment=133215

I'll continue with this conversation there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know BK, Wibble likes to try and prove evolution by the, "pattern" in the fossils, and my signature therefore applies to him very much indeed.

 

What Wibble and those like him don't understand is that the, "pattern" was already known to Darwin and he formulated evolution based on it. 

 

So the, "pattern" in the rocks is referred to as, posteriori, meaning that with hindsight it is easy to say "evolution happen like this; fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal" because they looked at the rocks and saw particular animal groups turn up in a way that the law of superposition might suggest chronologically if uniformity is accepted and flume experiments proving hydraulic forces defy superposition, ignored.

 

Superposition has been disproven using flume experiments, meaning that when there is a hydraulic force, the "lower" layers can contain fossils deposited in them which are laid down AFTER the ones at the top. As the sedimentation builds, it builds in the direction of the current, meaning strata is laid down and builds up in a manner which allows the bottom layer to be exposed as the current pushes it, which means fossils from the, "top" layer can fall down to the bottom, then get buried.

 

"evolution is the cause of all life on earth, from fish, amphibians, reptiles..etc...and how do we know the order is like that? Because of the fossils, which evolution says would create that pattern."

 

(see the switch? They make the pattern belong to, "evolution", a bait and switch job because they call it the evolutionary pattern/order) It isn't evolution that laid claim to that pattern! They just have built evolution on that pattern so they now switch it so as to make out that it is evolution that says this pattern happened. The rocks are where the pattern comes from, not evolution theory - evo only says that pattern is how evo happened BECAUSE that is the pattern that is there!

 

This is why Wibble fails to understand the significance of logic in argumentation. The, "pattern" is actually what we found, and that is all , NOT what evolution predicted. If evolution had predicted that pattern, it would be hard to not be an evolutionist....... it's likened to this analogy; "see that food over there, I say it all belongs to your boss. You don't think it does, so to prove me wrong you must eat it."

 

See the fault? I don't have to eat it as it's a red herring, I just have to ask who it belongs to. Low and behold, imagine if someone were to say, "it belongs to nobody".

 

It's the same with the fossil record - as creationists we don't have to break the pattern because it doesn't belong to evolution to begin with, we just have to show that the pattern is just a pattern, and evolution is just what they claim made it. We can reject evolution but accept the pattern

 

They may claim evolution caused such a pattern, but they don't offer up any reason why we should accept that evolution happened in the order of the pattern except that this is the evolutionary order which is a TRICK - a sleight of hand, for it is not GRANTED logically that it is the evolution-order. The only reason they call it the evolution-pattern is because that is the pattern they found, so they said evolution happened in a way that fits that pattern. (circular)

 

My request is this; did evolution predict that pattern, apriori? If it didn't then I have no cause to accept the pattern is an evolutionary one or even accept that evolution would cause it. Why would it? Because it's there? Think about it - there is no reason to accept it is an evolution pattern except that it is there but flume experiments have shown that such a pattern doesn't have to be a chronology, meaning it doesn't have to fit an evolution-history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wibble: Claiming all radiometric samples are contaminated by excess daughter isotopes isn't positive evidence of youth Mike. It's just an unsupported assertion against the multiple methods and an insinuation that all the scientists involved are incompetent idiots.

 

How you can look at the Hawaiian island graph in that other thread for example, and conclude random contamination would produce such a close correlation shows how wilfully blind you are.

 

I didn't claim that.

 

Well what are you claiming then ? If you’re not claiming contamination or incompetent/fraudulent scientists cause radiometric time series to make sense then what is it ? The ad hoc accelerated decay that melts the Earth ?

 

As for the correlation, Blitzking mentioned some correlations too, which you also willfully ignore, such as the carbon dating matching with the young tissue to corroborate youth. You also have to ignore the correlations for the data that shows such a close match from the zircons as I shown. It's hypocritical to call me willfully blind when you do the exact same things I do for your evo-god.

Helium diffusion from zircons ? Do you think a project undertaken backed by organizations that openly declare that any evidence in conflict with scripture is invalid by definition are likely to be objective or trustworthy in their research ? The rate of helium diffusion is subject to considerable change according to the geothermal history of a site. When the RATE team’s model was applied to other sites it didn’t work at all. Read a resource that doesn’t agree with your a priori belief for a change.

 

The Hawaiian island graph is simple to understand and evaluate. I’ve seen no evidence to indicate that you have done any more than blindly accept the helium diffusion graph because all you do is just present it.

 

As for carbon dating matching “young†tissue, how is that a correlation ? How many years have you measured with red blood cells inside a fossilised dinosaur bone ?

 

I’ve been through supposed young carbon dates pretty exhaustively with IndyDave. It’s contamination/machine noise, whether you deny it or not. When ultrafiltration techniques are applied with the AMS process you get (mammoth bones for example) that previously dated c 35,000 yrs old instead producing infinite age results (as in below detection limits). Which proves that the c.1% C14 to produce the previous finite date was just contamination.

 

If these young dinosaur dates are valid 4500 yr Flood victims like you think and there is no contamination, then why don’t they all date the same ?

 

 

Wibble: Do you think when fish finally appear in the fossil record that they are all just like the ones you find today and there has been stasis ever since ?

 

Erm...yes - I shown you a video in the island thread and Dr Bergman actually shows specific species of fish, their fossil next to a picture of a living one. Lol. And didn't you hear what Blitz said, he gave an example of a fish that has remain unchanged for hundreds of fictional millions of years - the coelecanth. There are more on Bergman's video - I shown you a funnel-nose ray which is highly diverged and is identical, jellyfish are fish by the way, and they are identical. If you're going to be this far off the mark you should at least watch the video and then you won't ask for things which you should know exist and can be found in the plenty. Isn't that, "willfully blind"? :rolleyes:

 

I did watch the video, he gave examples of fish fossils from the Eocene, where it's no surprise to see examples of extant fish. I'm not asking about tens of millions of years ago I'm referring to much further back. The Devonian - the Age of Fishes, you have a completely different fish assemblage. You can cherry pick coelacanth or some lung fish but by doing so you ignore the vast majority of modern species that are not represented in those strata.

 

Jellyfish are fish ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why Wibble fails to understand the significance of logic in argumentation. The, "pattern" is actually what we found, and that is all , NOT what evolution predicted. If evolution had predicted that pattern, it would be hard to not be an evolutionist.......

What you seem to fail to understand is that the pattern has not been established by a 100% complete search of all rock strata and then saying evolution predicts this pattern (it will be a vanishingly small percentage). The prediction that a mammal will never be found in the Carboniferous etc etc. is fulfilled every time we dig and search fresh deposits in cliffs and quarries and boreholes throughout the world. Creationists can search too, if the general pattern of emergence was wrong it would have been exposed by now.

 

That's (one of the reasons) why it's hard not to be an evolutionist...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Blitzking: So we are to believe that over the range of "500 Million Years", as the jellyfish was remaining unchanged, A Fish, living in the EXACT SAME ENVIRONMENT, was evolving into a Man?

Exactly, there's no reason to accept the double standard except; "believe it because we believe evolution happened", revealing that macro evolution for that scenario is nothing more than an argument from credulity; "I believe it did happen that way against any facts by faith, therefore it did."

 

(read my signature, it will tell you.) :D

Fish and Jellyfish might not have the same genetic flexibility?

 

To explain, imagine you are playing scrabble. You have just drawn a set of letters in front of you. Depending on the board state, some words can be formed.

Your opponents play, the board changes. For some sets, words that were available no longer are or new words can now be formed, for some other sets, nothing important changed and the best words can still be placed. Its similar to explain your jellyfish "problem" as to why some species appear to change more then others.

As an international chess master, as well as a fairly well known former backgammon and poker player I can relate to board games and similar analogies.. You like scrabble.. Lets give a MUCH MORE accurate analogy as to what is really going on here...

 

NOW..

 

Imagine 1 OCTILLION Scrabble games, already played out with all of the tiles used up and games finished on every board... Now, hand out a few hundred thousand extra tiles to a few people and say.. Go ahead and add or subtract these extra tiles where you can, add or change letters to ALREADY EXISTING WORDS, just for variation, BUT DONT CHANGE THE MEANING..... turn words like " "shop" to "shoppe" or vice versa.. Night to Nite, Academy to Academie, judgement to judgment, Aesthetic to Esthetic, Adviser to Advisor, Grey to Gray, Ameba to Ameoba, Nite to Night, Amuck to Amok, Disc to Dick, Etc... I could go on for pages but I hope you get the idea..

 

"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. 'Chance,' 'time,' and 'nature,' are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life..."

 

(Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is why Wibble fails to understand the significance of logic in argumentation. The, "pattern" is actually what we found, and that is all , NOT what evolution predicted. If evolution had predicted that pattern, it would be hard to not be an evolutionist.......

 

What you seem to fail to understand is that the pattern has not been established by a 100% complete search of all rock strata and then saying evolution predicts this pattern (it will be a vanishingly small percentage). The prediction that a mammal will never be found in the Carboniferous etc etc. is fulfilled every time we dig and search fresh deposits in cliffs and quarries and boreholes throughout the world. Creationists can search too, if the general pattern of emergence was wrong it would have been exposed by now.

 

That's (one of the reasons) why it's hard not to be an evolutionist...

..

"The prediction that a mammal will never be found in the Carboniferous etc etc."

 

GIVE US A BREAK.. This doesn't even pass the laugh test..

 

So if a mammal were to be found where it "Isnt Supposed to be" then what do you think would happen... Do you REALLY believe that the accidentalists would all demand they stop the presses and rewrite the biology textbooks and admit that AbioDarwinism is a myth? And immediately demand that Abiodarwism be removed from Biology Classes and put in Philosophy classes instead where it belongs?

 

NOT IN A MILLION YEARS...(Pardon the Punny Phrase)

 

What is EASIER to explain away?

 

A mammal in the Carboniferous?

 

OR

 

Red Blood Cells OR Carbon 14 In ALL Dinosaurs ever dated?

 

Come on, Think man THINK! Let us reason together....

 

The mammal in the wrong place would be just "Explained away" as an "Anomaly" ( which is EXACTLY What you are doing with Red Blood Cells.. EXACTLY) AND, the information about the misplaced mammal would NEVER MAKE IT into the Biology Textbooks JUST EXACTLY LIKE the Carbon 14 and RBCs HAVE NEVER MADE IT into the Biology textbooks today.. Because any and all info that does NOT AGREE WITH the Naturalistic Paradigm is Censored by the Academic Fascists of our time.... I ask you.. Who do you think you are fooling here?

 

Todays Biology Students are treated just like mushrooms..

They are kept in the dark and fed a strict diet of Taurine Fecal Matter..

 

 

"That's (one of the reasons) why it's hard not to be an evolutionist"

 

HUH?

 

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"

 

(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..

"The prediction that a mammal will never be found in the Carboniferous etc etc."

 

GIVE US A BREAK.. This doesn't even pass the laugh test..

 

So if a mammal were to be found where it "Isnt Supposed to be" then what do you think would happen... Do you REALLY believe that the accidentalists would all demand they stop the presses and rewrite the biology textbooks and admit that AbioDarwinism is a myth? And immediately demand that Abiodarwism be removed from Biology Classes and put in Philosophy classes instead where it belongs?

 

What is EASIER to explain away?

 

A mammal in the Carboniferous?

 

OR

 

Red Blood Cells OR Carbon 14 In ALL Dinosaurs ever dated?

 

Come on, Think man THINK! Let us reason together....

 

The mammal in the wrong place would be just "Explained away" as an "Anomaly" ( which is EXACTLY What you are doing with Red Blood Cells.. EXACTLY) AND, the information about the misplaced mammal would NEVER MAKE IT into the Biology Textbooks JUST EXACTLY LIKE the Carbon 14 and RBCs HAVE NEVER MADE IT into the Biology textbooks today.. Because any and all info that does NOT AGREE WITH the Naturalistic Paradigm is Censored by the Academic Fascists of our time.... I ask you.. Who do you think you are fooling here?

Finding a mammal or bird in the Carboniferous would wreck the ToE. Go find one. Would do nothing for YEC though.

 

How do you know red blood cells can't be preserved for millions of years under any circumstance ?

 

 

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"

 

(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

What is the point of your quote mine obsession ? It's a bit sad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are to believe that over the range of "500 Million Years", as the jellyfish was remaining unchanged, A Fish, living in the EXACT SAME ENVIRONMENT, was evolving into a Man?

Tee hee ... that's such a silly story!  Imagine if there were people who actually believed that to be true ... and imagine if they called it a scientific fact!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Blitzking: So we are to believe that over the range of "500 Million Years", as the jellyfish was remaining unchanged, A Fish, living in the EXACT SAME ENVIRONMENT, was evolving into a Man?

 

Exactly, there's no reason to accept the double standard except; "believe it because we believe evolution happened", revealing that macro evolution for that scenario is nothing more than an argument from credulity; "I believe it did happen that way against any facts by faith, therefore it did."

 

(read my signature, it will tell you.) :D

Once creation is rejected as a possibility, one really has no alternative but to accept the general theory of evolution; it is the only "plausible explanation" out there in Godless World.  The miracle of creation (which requires faith) is replaced by the magic of abiogenesis/evolution (which requires faith).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

..

"The prediction that a mammal will never be found in the Carboniferous etc etc."

GIVE US A BREAK.. This doesn't even pass the laugh test..

So if a mammal were to be found where it "Isnt Supposed to be" then what do you think would happen... Do you REALLY believe that the accidentalists would all demand they stop the presses and rewrite the biology textbooks and admit that AbioDarwinism is a myth? And immediately demand that Abiodarwism be removed from Biology Classes and put in Philosophy classes instead where it belongs?

What is EASIER to explain away?

A mammal in the Carboniferous?

OR

Red Blood Cells OR Carbon 14 In ALL Dinosaurs ever dated?

Come on, Think man THINK! Let us reason together....

The mammal in the wrong place would be just "Explained away" as an "Anomaly" ( which is EXACTLY What you are doing with Red Blood Cells.. EXACTLY) AND, the information about the misplaced mammal would NEVER MAKE IT into the Biology Textbooks JUST EXACTLY LIKE the Carbon 14 and RBCs HAVE NEVER MADE IT into the Biology textbooks today.. Because any and all info that does NOT AGREE WITH the Naturalistic Paradigm is Censored by the Academic Fascists of our time.... I ask you.. Who do you think you are fooling here?

 

Finding a mammal or bird in the Carboniferous would wreck the ToE. Go find one. Would do nothing for YEC though.

 

How do you know red blood cells can't be preserved for millions of years under any circumstance ?

 

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"

(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

 

What is the point of your quote mine obsession ? It's a bit sad
"Finding a mammal or bird in the Carboniferous would wreck the ToE"

 

Maybe for a day or two until the ad hoc rescue hypotheses come to explain it away.. Wow, A Shocker! a strain of mammals somehow existed before previously thought..."We need to review previously held beliefs about mamalian evolution!" It has been done many times.. Why do you think "Convergent Evolution", "Magic Iron in Dino blood" "Punctuated Equilibrium", and "500 MYO Living Fossils" had to be cooked up? TO EXPLAIN AWAY THE OBSERVABLE FACTS THAT DONT AGREE WITH THE MYTH..

 

BE HONEST

 

All you have to do is go back and rewrite the science fiction novel to include a caveat for early mamalian evolution and problem solved..

That is the beauty about science fiction based on Long Ago and Far Away.. You just get to make it up as you go along (And you guys have done that very well) You can make up any ex post facto explanations you think will sell.. And being that Nobody has a time machine, WHO CAN PROVE YOU WRONG??.. Especially if you can convince enough people that you are on the side of "Science" LOL

 

"What is the point of your quote mine obsession ? It's a bit sad"

 

NO

 

NOT "Quote Mines"... DIRECT QUOTES!...

 

I hope that explains the difference..(And it is a MASSIVE difference indeed)

 

Please don't say it is sad, Because I like quoting scientists to remind people that the Evolution myth has ZERO to do with Science.. and That hurts my feelings..

 

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."

 

(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fish and Jellyfish might not have the same genetic flexibility?

To explain, imagine you are playing scrabble. You have just drawn a set of letters in front of you. Depending on the board state, some words can be formed.

Your opponents play, the board changes. For some sets, words that were available no longer are or new words can now be formed, for some other sets, nothing important changed and the best words can still be placed. Its similar to explain your jellyfish "problem" as to why some species appear to change more then others.

As an international chess master, as well as a fairly well known former backgammon and poker player I can relate to board games and similar analogies.. You like scrabble.. Lets give a MUCH MORE accurate analogy as to what is really going on here...

 

NOW..

 

Imagine 1 OCTILLION Scrabble games, already played out with all of the tiles used up and games finished on every board... Now, hand out a few hundred thousand extra tiles to a few people and say.. Go ahead and add or subtract these extra tiles where you can, add or change letters to ALREADY EXISTING WORDS, just for variation, BUT DONT CHANGE THE MEANING..... turn words like " "shop" to "shoppe" or vice versa.. Night to Nite, Academy to Academie, judgement to judgment, Aesthetic to Esthetic, Adviser to Advisor, Grey to Gray, Ameba to Ameoba, Nite to Night, Amuck to Amok, Disc to Dick, Etc... I could go on for pages but I hope you get the idea..

 

Tsk tsk, that's not how analogies are made. Here's a schematic to build up analogies in the future:

 

- Identify the issue you want to represent.

- Find a familiar "system" which can be the "system" of the issue and find a familiar "act" within that system which can be the "act" of the issue.

- Note there are parts of the analogy which will be representative and which will not be. If these parts

 

For our analogy

- The issue is a difference in adaptation between Jellyfish and Fish while going to the same environmental changes.

- Scrabble is a very commonly known game. You try to make words with random letters and fit them on a board which changes every turn.

The act of changing which words to make is representing the adaptation.

The board changing is representing the environmental changes.

Different sets of letters having different flexibility with regard to board change represent different flexibility with regard to adaptation.

- The ill-represented parts are that drawing a certain set of letters is not representative statistically with adaptation statistics. This is not an issue since the focus is on the difference between 2 sets rather then the probability of a single set.

So the analogy is written:

Imagine you are playing scrabble. You have just drawn a set of letters in front of you. Depending on the board state, some words can be formed.
Your opponents play, the board changes. For some sets, words that were available no longer are or new words can now be formed, for some other sets, nothing important changed and the best words can still be placed. Its similar to explain your jellyfish "problem" as to why some species appear to change more then others.
 
Can you do the same with yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fish and Jellyfish might not have the same genetic flexibility?

To explain, imagine you are playing scrabble. You have just drawn a set of letters in front of you. Depending on the board state, some words can be formed.

Your opponents play, the board changes. For some sets, words that were available no longer are or new words can now be formed, for some other sets, nothing important changed and the best words can still be placed. Its similar to explain your jellyfish "problem" as to why some species appear to change more then others.

As an international chess master, as well as a fairly well known former backgammon and poker player I can relate to board games and similar analogies.. You like scrabble.. Lets give a MUCH MORE accurate analogy as to what is really going on here...

 

NOW..

 

Imagine 1 OCTILLION Scrabble games, already played out with all of the tiles used up and games finished on every board... Now, hand out a few hundred thousand extra tiles to a few people and say.. Go ahead and add or subtract these extra tiles where you can, add or change letters to ALREADY EXISTING WORDS, just for variation, BUT DONT CHANGE THE MEANING..... turn words like " "shop" to "shoppe" or vice versa.. Night to Nite, Academy to Academie, judgement to judgment, Aesthetic to Esthetic, Adviser to Advisor, Grey to Gray, Ameba to Ameoba, Nite to Night, Amuck to Amok, Disc to Dick, Etc... I could go on for pages but I hope you get the idea..

 

Tsk tsk, that's not how analogies are made. Here's a schematic to build up analogies in the future:

 

- Identify the issue you want to represent.

- Find a familiar "system" which can be the "system" of the issue and find a familiar "act" within that system which can be the "act" of the issue.

- Note there are parts of the analogy which will be representative and which will not be. If these parts

 

For our analogy

- The issue is a difference in adaptation between Jellyfish and Fish while going to the same environmental changes.

- Scrabble is a very commonly known game. You try to make words with random letters and fit them on a board which changes every turn.

The act of changing which words to make is representing the adaptation.

The board changing is representing the environmental changes.

Different sets of letters having different flexibility with regard to board change represent different flexibility with regard to adaptation.

- The ill-represented parts are that drawing a certain set of letters is not representative statistically with adaptation statistics. This is not an issue since the focus is on the difference between 2 sets rather then the probability of a single set.

So the analogy is written:

Imagine you are playing scrabble. You have just drawn a set of letters in front of you. Depending on the board state, some words can be formed.
Your opponents play, the board changes. For some sets, words that were available no longer are or new words can now be formed, for some other sets, nothing important changed and the best words can still be placed. Its similar to explain your jellyfish "problem" as to why some species appear to change more then others.
 
Can you do the same with yours?

 

 

 

 

"The issue is a difference in adaptation between Jellyfish and Fish while going to the same environmental changes"

 

Well. The "400 MILLION YEAR OLD" COELECANTH that was supposedly "Extinct for 65 Million years" Just came back to life

 

last century and blew your " Difference in Adaptation while going to the same environmental changes"  Myth right back

down to the bottom of the ocean (where it belongs) :gilligan:

 

http://mycoraltriangle.com/coralweb/stories/details.aspx?id=13

 

So, we are supposed to believe over the course of 400 million years, while the Coelecanth  (A FISH) and the Jellyfish (MEDUSAE) changed ZERO,

Other FISH, And MEDUSAE, Living in the EXACT SAME ENVIRONMENT Were Evolving into a MAN??? :laugh_point:  :snapoutofit:

 

Science Fiction novels have NOTHING on your AbioDarwinian Myth....

 

 

"Imagine you are playing scrabble. You have just drawn a set of letters in front of you. Depending on the board state, some words can be formed."

 

Sorry, This "Game of Scrabble" Was already completed in ONE WEEK over 6000 Years ago.. The designer of the Game allowed for Variation and Adaptation of

the Words but the meanings would remain the Same..  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "EVOLUTION"!! :kaffeetrinker:  (Except in the Textbooks and Imaginations of Men)

 

“Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature….

Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.â€

 

Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler,

 

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.â€

 

 Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm,

 

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they

are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.â€

 

Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell (United Kingdom: Roydon Publications,

 

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of

nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."

 

Albert Fleischmann. Witnesses Against Evolution by John Fred Meldau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"The issue is a difference in adaptation between Jellyfish and Fish while going to the same environmental changes"

 

Well. The "400 MILLION YEAR OLD" COELECANTH that was supposedly "Extinct for 65 Million years" Just came back to life

 

last century and blew your " Difference in Adaptation while going to the same environmental changes"  Myth right back

down to the bottom of the ocean (where it belongs) :gilligan:

 

http://mycoraltriangle.com/coralweb/stories/details.aspx?id=13

 

So, we are supposed to believe over the course of 400 million years, while the Coelecanth  (A FISH) and the Jellyfish (MEDUSAE) changed ZERO,

Other FISH, And MEDUSAE, Living in the EXACT SAME ENVIRONMENT Were Evolving into a MAN??? :laugh_point:  :snapoutofit:

 

Science Fiction novels have NOTHING on your AbioDarwinian Myth....

 

 

"Imagine you are playing scrabble. You have just drawn a set of letters in front of you. Depending on the board state, some words can be formed."

 

Sorry, This "Game of Scrabble" Was already completed in ONE WEEK over 6000 Years ago.. The designer of the Game allowed for Variation and Adaptation of

the Words but the meanings would remain the Same..  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "EVOLUTION"!! :kaffeetrinker:  (Except in the Textbooks and Imaginations of Men)

In no way did you address my points. Since you cannot seem to do anything other then spout the same nonsense over and over again (even if using some new words..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Finding a mammal or bird in the Carboniferous would wreck the ToE"

 

Maybe for a day or two until the ad hoc rescue hypotheses come to explain it away..

 

All you have to do is go back and rewrite the science fiction novel to include a caveat for early mamalian evolution and problem solved..

No it would be a killer blow if something modern like a monkey or a toucan was discovered in amongst the plant and arthropod fossils (that we do find) of Carboniferous age terrestrial deposits. It just wouldn't make sense since the ancestral synapsids "mammal like reptiles" don't appear until the Permian and there is no recognizably modern mammal until well after the dinosaurs died out.

 

"What is the point of your quote mine obsession ? It's a bit sad"

 

NO

 

NOT "Quote Mines"... DIRECT QUOTES!...

 

I hope that explains the difference..(And it is a MASSIVE difference indeed)

This Luthrip fellow (back in 1987 from where this quote is dug up from) didn't deny that evolution was a fact though. He didn't accept gradual Darwinian change but had his own ideas of macromutations as the mechanism.

 

You forgot to answer this:

 

 

 

How do you know red blood cells can't be preserved for millions of years under any circumstance ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Finding a mammal or bird in the Carboniferous would wreck the ToE"

 

Maybe for a day or two until the ad hoc rescue hypotheses come to explain it away..

 

All you have to do is go back and rewrite the science fiction novel to include a caveat for early mamalian evolution and problem solved..

No it would be a killer blow if something modern like a monkey or a toucan was discovered in amongst the plant and arthropod fossils (that we do find) of Carboniferous age terrestrial deposits. It just wouldn't make sense since the ancestral synapsids "mammal like reptiles" don't appear until the Permian and there is no recognizably modern mammal until well after the dinosaurs died out.

 

"What is the point of your quote mine obsession ? It's a bit sad"

 

NO

 

NOT "Quote Mines"... DIRECT QUOTES!...

 

I hope that explains the difference..(And it is a MASSIVE difference indeed)

This Luthrip fellow (back in 1987 from where this quote is dug up from) didn't deny that evolution was a fact though. He didn't accept gradual Darwinian change but had his own ideas of macromutations as the mechanism.

 

You forgot to answer this:

 

 

 

How do you know red blood cells can't be preserved for millions of years under any circumstance ?

 

 

"No it would be a killer blow if something modern like a monkey or a toucan was discovered in amongst the plant and arthropod fossils"

 

"Killer blow"?    :rotfl3:  :funny:  :burp:

 

So what would happen if such a thing were discovered?  I know what WOULDNT happen.. AbioDarwinsim / "TOE" would NOT BE

removed from the biology textbooks and WOULD NOT be removed from ANY Public High School Science Classes... Know what I mean?  :gilligan:

 

"You forgot to answer this:"

 

"How do you know red blood cells can't be preserved for millions of years under any circumstance?"

 

I love how you guys are all about the "Science" While asking me to prove a negative (You DO Realize that That is EXACTLY what you are doing right?)

 

Answer me this first..

 

How do YOU know that Man (or his "Ancestors") were able to live without all 10 Interdependent Vital Organs?

Because that is SURELY what you must believe had to happen right? (If you honestly think about it)  :blink:

 

 

"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself

become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel,

only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith." M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism,"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"The issue is a difference in adaptation between Jellyfish and Fish while going to the same environmental changes"

 

Well. The "400 MILLION YEAR OLD" COELECANTH that was supposedly "Extinct for 65 Million years" Just came back to life

 

last century and blew your " Difference in Adaptation while going to the same environmental changes"  Myth right back

down to the bottom of the ocean (where it belongs) :gilligan:

 

http://mycoraltriangle.com/coralweb/stories/details.aspx?id=13

 

So, we are supposed to believe over the course of 400 million years, while the Coelecanth  (A FISH) and the Jellyfish (MEDUSAE) changed ZERO,

Other FISH, And MEDUSAE, Living in the EXACT SAME ENVIRONMENT Were Evolving into a MAN??? :laugh_point:  :snapoutofit:

 

Science Fiction novels have NOTHING on your AbioDarwinian Myth....

 

 

"Imagine you are playing scrabble. You have just drawn a set of letters in front of you. Depending on the board state, some words can be formed."

 

Sorry, This "Game of Scrabble" Was already completed in ONE WEEK over 6000 Years ago.. The designer of the Game allowed for Variation and Adaptation of

the Words but the meanings would remain the Same..  THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "EVOLUTION"!! :kaffeetrinker:  (Except in the Textbooks and Imaginations of Men)

In no way did you address my points. Since you cannot seem to do anything other then spout the same nonsense over and over again (even if using some new words..)

 

 

"In no way did you address my points."

 

I don't know.. I kind of thought that THIS pretty much ended the conversation..

Since you DIDNT answer it,....

 

 

So, we are supposed to believe over the course of 400 million years, while the Coelecanth  (A FISH) and the Jellyfish (MEDUSAE) changed ZERO,

Other FISH, And MEDUSAE, Living in the EXACT SAME ENVIRONMENT Were Evolving into a MAN??? 

 

http://mycoraltriang...ails.aspx?id=13

 

 

[Evolution]“…a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Evolution is a religion. 

This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.â€

Michael Ruse. Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, we are supposed to believe over the course of 400 million years, while the Coelecanth  (A FISH) and the Jellyfish (MEDUSAE) changed ZERO,

Other FISH, And MEDUSAE, Living in the EXACT SAME ENVIRONMENT Were Evolving into a MAN??? 

 

 

As far as I know the evolutionary line that produced humans never had a cnidarian.

 

It's really no great mystery why some fish are still fish and some fish eventually evolved into humans. Environment plays a key role, but if you don't have the mutations in your population then said population is obviously not going to go in that direction. Some fish had the mutations at the right environmental time that eventually lead them to become terrestrial, and the populations without those mutations when there is an environmental pressure/niche to become terrestrial wouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms