Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,217 Year: 5,474/9,624 Month: 499/323 Week: 139/204 Day: 9/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion on Creation article...
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 95 (320923)
06-12-2006 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SR71
06-12-2006 11:47 AM


How did the hummingbird develop into such a high-metabolic bird? Why are there not many other birds similar to it? What fossils do we have that show its gradual development into what we know them as today?
The metabolism is related to the size and the requirements for flight.
Are there other birds that can hover? Lots, the biggest is probably the Osprey.
Are there other birds that dine on flower nectar? Lots, the most colorful are arguably the Hawaiian Honeycreepers
hawaii honeycreepers
Are there other birds that are small? Lots, as any birder trying to track warblers knows, especially young ones. Hummingbirds are the smallest, true, but one kind of bird has to be the smallest doesn't it? There are other birds smaller than the biggest hummingbird, the 8" long 'Giant Hummingbird' of South America.
Are there other birds with irridescent colors? Lots, too many to list here, other than to mention that there are "ordinary" blackbirds included on the list.
Are there any birds that combine all these characteristics? Yes, hummingbirds.
Are there OTHER birds that are just exactly like hummingbirds without being hummingbirds? (After you stop laughing at how silly this question really is ... ) No, because evolution does not work that way.
Convergent evolution shows that certain features will be arrived at by separate evolution where the opportunity exists for an ecological niche to fill -- but not that a whole {species\genera\family} will be duplicated, as that is not necessary to take advantage of the ecological opportunity.
As for the fossils question, why do we need to? It's a bird, in every bone and every feather, and it doesn't have features that we don't see in other birds. It is not significantly different from an "average" bird, certainly not more so than many other examples of avian diversification. There is nothing special to be explained by such a fossil record: all it would show is a gradual decrease in size to get to the point of being the smallest bird, but no great transformation (transition?) is necessary to get there.
Why don't hummingbirds have expandable pouches like pelicans, for instance, so they can carry loads of nectar back to the nest? LOL.
All of these questions are just an argument of incredulity -- look at this species ... isn't it incredible? Amazing that there aren't others JUST like it!!!
It relies on ignorance to sound reasonable.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SR71, posted 06-12-2006 11:47 AM SR71 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by MangyTiger, posted 06-16-2006 10:34 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 95 (322846)
06-18-2006 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by MangyTiger
06-16-2006 10:34 PM


... the one thing that is, ... unique to the humming birds - the ability to fly backwards. ...
Several insects, most notably the dragonfly that has been around since ? the creataceous ? can fly backwards.
The Kestral comes the closest in it's {agility\ability} as it hovers over a possible prey and keeps it underneath - they can back up but it's more like they're flying 'up' with their wings near vertical.
It could be a function of size limitations - lift\drag ratios as well as surface to volume (weight) ratios.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by MangyTiger, posted 06-16-2006 10:34 PM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by MangyTiger, posted 06-18-2006 11:56 AM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 95 (329147)
07-05-2006 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mr_matrix
07-04-2006 2:34 PM


Re: More Fantasies by Mr Matrix
You should make some attempt to link your quotes to the posts and people that made them, if you really want an answer.
jazzns, msg 3 writes:
The other features of a platapus are all easily explained by converget evolution.
Convergent evolution? How?
Duckbills have evolved in several species - dinosaurs, ducks, platypus, even fish. The reasons for the development are the same (food), the way they get there is different. That is what convergent evolution is about.
Do you really wonder how web feet can evolve independently in many otherwise unrelated species?
Why?
crashfrog, msg 4 writes:
Not many birds? A quick Wikipedia search tells me that there's as many as 340 species of hummingbird, organized into two subfamilies.
You said it yourself, they are all species of hummingbird with their unique way of flight.
What is unique about hummingbird flight?
crash again writes:
In regards to bombadier beetles, there's hundreds of species of beetles with ealier versions of the bombadier mechanism. They don't, as a rule, tend to blow up.
They dont blow up because this is how they are intellegantly designed.
The chemicals mixed together do not "blow up" either.
Can you demonstrate exactly how this "intelligent design" process occurred? How was it effected? What is the evidence? Just claiming a result with no evidence to validate it is not science, it is fantasy.
subbie, msg 5 writes:
those questions are not particularly important in evaluating the weight of the ToE. A scientific theory is not condemned simply because there are questions within the theory that cannot be fully answered.
In other words, ignore the details and stick to a dogmatic belief in evolution no matter how many opposing evidences you might face.
The existence of unanswered questions is not falsification of any theory, they are just unanswered questions. Expecting all answers is a matter for faith in fairytales not science, science is content to say "we don't know this today" and wait for new evidence.
Assuming that "we don't know today" means "GOD-DID-IT" is IDiocy, a leap of faith illogical conclusion.
subbie again writes:
Since creationism, and intelligent design, don't explain anything, they fall far short of replacing the ToE.
Realy? Creationism is simple: There is intellegent design all over nature and has to be the product of an intellegent creator.
It is so simple that it is no answer ... scientist: "here look at this what do you think made this happen?" creationist: "god" ... same answer for any question, provides no additional information.
As for the evidence of "intelligent design all over nature" this sure incorporates a lot of BAD design that has to be the product of a BAD designer (what proportion of designs are SO bad that they are now extinct? 99%? 99.9%? 99.99%?)
jar, msg 6 writes:
Any one that has seen chameleons run up and down walls, trees, bushes, table legs and drainspouts knows that the Gecko is not unique. Lots of lizards climb.
It seems that you didnt realy understand the question. ... The question asks how this remarkable adhesive on the foot of the gecko could have evolved. Other lizards could climb! Sure, but how did this climbing ability originally came to be possessed by them? Can you provide a proper "scientific" explanation?
Seems you didn't understand the answer - similar climbing ability is seen at different levels in different lizards. Thus evolution of climbing ability is entirely possible. What makes the gecko superior? Well for one thing, when you make such a comparison no matter what feature you are using, one species has to come out better at it than the others. Claiming this is something fantastic is known as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Many species have evolved ways of doing things that humans have not figured out yet, (strength of spider silk, the glue of barnacles, etc) what's so special about that?
More to the point - do you think we will never know enough "for future design of a remarkable effective adhesive"?
jar again writes:
The Giraffe got it's brain and plumbing system just like it got its neck, in little steps and over a long period of time. And the giraffe is NOT the only such critter. There have been many such long necked critters. Ever see a picture of Brachiosaurus?
Just the claim that the "Giraffe got it's brain and plumbing system just like it got its neck over a long period of time" does not make it true because it is just a claim. So which feature evoleved first?
They co-evolved. As each stage of longer neck evolved the plumbing system evolved to match. The evidence is for sexual selection (mating dominance through "necking" battles would make for speedy evolution of longer stronger necks). Is it really such a stretch? Other animals have had longer necks (as pointed out). Snakes have also evolved extra vertibra to become longer. Horses have evolved extra plumbing to provide extra circulation to their legs.
Chiroptera, msg 7 writes:
Remember: the opposite of "this is impossible" is not "this actually occurred"; the opposite of "this is impossible" is "this is possible". Therefore, it is not necessary to know the actual details of the actual history to refute the argument by incredulity; all that is necessary is to explain why it is possible, to give a plausible explanation.
So that is a clear confession that you dont know the evolutionary history of most species but you are only guessing and assuming based on your biased and dogmatic belief in evolution. If you dont know the evolutionary history of a species than you dont have the right to claim that it has evolved in the first place.
Well, what he said before your quote refutes your answer:
I don't think that subbie's comment can be too overemphasized. There are unanswered questions in all fields of science. A theory is not falsified just because there is a phenomenon under its purview that poses unanswered questions.
There is so much evidence in favor of the Theory of Evolution that it is not in serious doubt. ...
Incidentally, I have already seen plausible histories of several of the mentioned species, and for the others it just isn't too hard to think of a plausible history. Try doing it yourself; the only requirement is that you develop the feature in small steps, and that each step results in improved "fitness" over the previous step.
All that is necessary is that each step is possible. As long as evolution cannot be ruled out AND there is no better answer (which as of today is still lacking), THEN it is reasonable to conclude that evolution was possible.
RAZD, msg 9 writes:
The metabolism is related to the size and the requirements for flight.
So what is your point? a chain of mutations reduced the size, increased the metabolism, provided high manuvearublility, rapid frequency of wing flapping, modified circulatory and respiratory systems to fit the bird's needs. That sound so irrational.
Smaller animals have higher metabolism as a general rule, flying animals have a higher metabolism as a general rule (general rule meaning independent of species).
The rate of metabolism is unrelated to the ability to manuever or the speed of wing flapping, it just relates to the supply of nutrients to the muscles. The circulatory and repiratory system of the hummingbird is no different than that of other birds, adjusted for size.
If it sounds "irrational" to you that's your problem, the facts show no special extraordinary evolution from the features found in other birds.
RAZD again writes:
As for the fossils question, why do we need to? It's a bird, in every bone and every feather, and it doesn't have features that we don't see in other birds.
Why do you need a fossil evidence if your claims are based on imagination and not on evidence.
I repeat: it does not have features not found in other birds, it is a bird. Any fossil of a hummingbird ancestor would still look like a bird. It would have the bones of a bird and the arrangement of the bones in a bird.
What do you expect such a fossil to show? How it breathes?
YOu said the hummingbird has no fossils to show evolution, so why do you even claim that there is evolution?
Actually I did NOT say there are no fossils, so don't make erroneous statements.
What I implied was that the fossils would not show much because it is a bird, it does not have features not found in other birds, and any fossils would have the bones of a bird and the arrangement of the bones in a bird.
Fossils do not prove evolution, they are predicted by it and their existence validates the theory. Absence of fossils does not invalidate the theory, especially when there are many reasons why fossils are missing (see Mr. Jack, Message 16)
Jonson-Needs_proof, msg 15 writes:
So why have crocs remained the same for so long?
The answer is evolution, they have evolved to a state where they are perfectly developed for their environment
Needless to say, this is just another irrational and baseless claim. The fact that the croc shows no change for a long period of time is clearly an evidence that there was no evolution going on.
Your continued hand waving and denial changes nothing. No evolution? Sorry they are not the same species as the crocs in the past, there has been continued evolution within the croc family with many new species since the days of the dinosaurs - the form and function remain roughly the same because it is a successful form and function.
Mr. Jack writes:
Presumably the gecko ancestors slowly developed from using suction to using the weak nuclear force with an overlap in which they relied on both.
I dont need to remind you here but this is again "just a claim". Lizards have their own distinct and unique ways of climbing. If evolution was true and there were realy overlaps in between, we should see millions of lizards living demonstrating climbing abilities in between as an overlap.
Of course your "claims" are nothing BUT claims.
For instance why should we "see millions of lizards living demonstrating climbing abilities in between" -- all that is necessary is the ones we have, they sufficiently demonstrate a trend in ability in small steps -- there is no huge gap in ability here either.
Mr Jack again writes:
Slowly. Their high metabolism is a product of several factors
How can high metabolism evolve slowly and by a gradual change? Flight is a complex process that...
What can stop it from evolving slowly and by gradual change?
Flight was fully evolved before hummingbirds developed from ancestral birds, so the whole argument on the "difficulty" of flight is irrelevant to the evolution of hummingbirds.
Before you all replied the author have already responded to your replies just by simply saying that all evolutionists' replies are all based on dogmatic belief in thier theory.
ROFLOL. Thus any criticism is dealt a summary blow before hand eh? This demonstrates (1) illogical thinking and (2) failure to understand science. Nature rolls on unimpeded by any such claims, totally underwhelmed.
You have made several claims of "dogmatic belief" now, but have yet to provide any evidence of such -- either of the dogmatism or of the belief aspects. Claiming such does not make it so, claiming it without any evidence means that it is just another unsupported assertion that really means nothing.
More telling than what you responded to were the items you did not respond to. More telling than what you picked to answer, is that every one of your arguements is the fallacy of argument from incredulity.
Sorry to say but your lack of ability to understand how it works is no impediment on nature, it's been too busy evolving to pay attention to you.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mr_matrix, posted 07-04-2006 2:34 PM mr_matrix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by MangyTiger, posted 07-06-2006 1:16 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 25 by mr_matrix, posted 07-06-2006 5:26 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 95 (329240)
07-06-2006 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by MangyTiger
07-06-2006 1:16 AM


Re: More Fantasies by Mr Matrix
But what is unique in the flight? The wings still flap, it is still feathers that make the wing aerodynamic, still the same bones that support the feathers and still the same muscles that make them move, etcetera - there is no really unique feature here, just selection for a certain ability.
I have also watched birds of prey hover over potential prey move backwards. I wouldn't call it "flying backwards" but they are maneuvering backwards as part of their hovering. The pattern of wing motion is not that different (allowing for difference in sizes) - it's a matter of degree.
The American Kestrel is one that can do this very well, though I have also seen osprey do it.
I don't know enought about the honeycreepers in Hawaii (especially the extinct ones) to know what their abilities were (using a similar food source) or enough about tropical birds to say that none others have the ability to back up.
Hummers are just best we know that have this ability, due to their chosen food source and the {lengths?\depths?} organisms will go evolving to take advantage of a niche through slight modifications of existing features. The beak of the hummer is probably more evolved than the wing in this regard. Certainly the feature that would identify fossils most clearly as hummingbirds would be the beaks.
Choosing a species that is "best" at some ability or other, and then claiming that "wow, it's better than all the others, so it must not be evolution" is post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy coupled with the argument from incredulity and ignorance and then leaping to a conclusion not supported by evidence.
Again, what is so unique about hummingbird flight? What is\are the feature(s) that would show up in fossils?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by MangyTiger, posted 07-06-2006 1:16 AM MangyTiger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by MangyTiger, posted 07-07-2006 9:20 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 95 (329498)
07-06-2006 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mr_matrix
07-06-2006 5:26 PM


Re: More Fallacies by mr_matrix
Note: do not just reply to few scentece fragments but reply to the entire idea of each paragraph.
If there is an idea worth responding to I will answer it, but I won't be dictated to by you. Particularly as you are more guilty of this "offense" than anyone else here.
You want shorter replies? Post less nonsense.
Im not making claims but just showing that YOU are making claims and assertions that are unproven.
ROFLOL -- ALL you are making is claims. You have not SHOWN anything, except a capacity for argument from incredulity and ignorance.
Nor am I claiming "proof" in my answers, (1) because proof is not possible in science, and (2) because it is not necessary to refute your unsubstantiated claims - all that is necessary is to demonstrate that it is possible.
Let's broaden this base a little to see if you can understand it -- evolution happens, it has been observed, it has been documented, it is so well observed and documented that creationists cannot argue the point anymore (other than to apply the strawman of micro\macro).
Evolution is the change in species through time.
One of the predictions of this is that each species will have an ancestor with {features\genes\etc} similar to the species in rough proportion to the time distance from ancestor to current species.
This does not mean that any {specific} ancestor needs to have existed, just ones that match the current species with allowance for change in species over time - evolution - to have occurred since the time of the ancestor.
None of the examples given are impossible to evolve, as we have seen evidence of similar evolution in other species. As long as evolution is possible the {test} of the common ancestor prediction has not been invalidated. As long as new fossils continue to be found that fill in the gaps between previous known fossils the {test} of the common ancestor prediction has not been invalidated.
You need something more than just an absence of (current existing) information to invalidate any theory.
The other thing scientists do is compare results of different theories to see if one explains things better than the others. This is how theories grow and develop.
So far no theory has done as well at explaining the evidence that we have as evolution. Even the untestable concepts of IDists and creationists do not explain the evidence better than the theories of evolution. In fact all the concept of ID amounts to is an argument from incredulity based on a lack of knowledge -- so any additional information is dangerous to the concept of ID.
I have already posted tis link:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_13.php
It shows you why convergent evolution is more like a fantasy rather than a scientific approach.
I know you posted it. I looked at it and wondered how anyone could think it had any valid information.
That is one of the reasons I asked "why" -- the other is that you did nothing except post a bare link (violation of forum guidelines), so I asked "why" to see if you would state what you thought was worth repeating from that site. You still haven't other than to assert a conclusions that is not supported by the facts. What it shows is how gullible some people are to accept this argument as valid without checking the facts from real sources.
When evolutionists see many examples of analogous structures they just cover them simply by saying "convergent evolution".
You obviously have no clue how classical taxonomy works. It doesn't start by putting all web-footed organisms together first, but looks at the structure inside the {foot\hand\paw} and of the rest of the organism to see what other organisms are closest to it in features and similar developments.
They look at the rest of the evidence to make sure that inside the species are very different, and that the only "convergence" is rather superficial, such as the example on the site of birds wing versus bat wing -- both allow flight, but the manner of flight is different, the support of the flying member is different, the aerodynamics of the wings are different, and the internal structures of bats and birds are different.
If one compared a bat, a monkey and a bird, the bat and the monkey would be closer than either to the bird. Do the same with bat, crocodile and bird, and the bird and crocodile are closer than either to the bat.
It is the differences rather than the similarities that show convergent evolution.
Do you know that when Australia seperated from the rest of the world there were no wolves or many other marsupials at that time, so how did Australia come to possess wolves and other marsupials just as the rest of the world?
This is the kind of mis-information you get from sites like the one you linked. The Tasmanian "wolf" had a pouch and was a marsupial and not a wolf at all. The shape of the head is similar but not identical, and there are significant differences that tell a thorough investigator that they are indeed different taxons. Why does your website show only the top of the skull when the whole skeleton is readily available for both animals? Can you see the difference between:
Thylacine ("Tasmanian Wolf")
and
Wolf
When you look at the whole picture you see that the superficial resemblance of the two heads is not matched by the rest of the animal. This makes it a rather good example of convergent evolution of a specific feature, rather than a refutation of it. LOL.
Plus there only needed to be one (1) species of marsupial on Australia for others to evolve from ... when in fact there were several, plus several species in Antarctica and South America (last to split from Australia eh?)
Australian Antarctic Program
Twenty million years before the dinosaurs became extinct, Australia, Antarctica and South America were part of the same land mass called Gondwana. In those days Antarctica was not covered in ice, even though it was at the South Pole. Animals passed freely from South America through Antarctica to Australia, and the plant species of Gondwana were also closely related to each other.
In many ways, the evolution of Antarctica appears to be similar to that of Australia. The fossil record of the two continents is similar, and Antarctica has yielded dinosaurs, amphibians and even marsupials from ages when the continents were joined.
Antarctica cooled and became ice bound after Australia and South America separated 30 million years ago,
Maybe you should do more research about the topic. Hummingbirds can generate vertical lift wich allows them to remain stationary in the air just by very rapid wing flapping. The design of the helicopter is based on the design in the hummingbird's flight. And you say there is no design in nature!!!
LOL. Again, (as in mentioned before) many hawks, eagles and other birds of prey can hover and rise vertically. The American Kestrel is an excellent example. This ability is thus NOT unique to hummers. I've seen it.
As to helicopters being designed based on hummers that is patently false. NO hummingbird has rotating wings on top of their bodies, just for starters. A helicopter is just a plane with a big propeller on top and very little wing.
I just did a search on {helicopeter history} and found this site:
Just a moment...
Then I searched the site for "humminbird" and the only result was an ultralight helicopter named a hummingbird. Based on this kind of evidence the helicopter was also designed based on the mosquito and the dragonfly - other ultralight helicopet model names.
I also tried
http://www.flying-bike.demon.co.uk/helistuff/heli.html
and
Helicopter History of Flight
... and found no reference to hummingbirds being a basis for design on either.
Then I searched {helicopeter history hummingbird} - and all I got were sites about models of helicopters named hummingbirds.
So far my research has refuted and invalidated your assertions.
You also did not answer my question:
What is unique about hummingbird flight?
If you are going to claim something is unique you need to be able to describe HOW it is unique eh?
Can you demonstrate exactly how this "intelligent design" process occurred? How was it effected? What is the evidence? Just claiming a result with no evidence to validate it is not science, it is fantasy.
Is this supposed to be a joke or some ignorant question? This runs parallel to the logic: "if you find a planet in space written on it -made by God- than I will believe in God".
In other words, no, you cannot demonstrate exactly how this "intelligent design" process occurred OR how was it effected, AND you have absolutely no evidence to support the assertion.
And no, your strawman "parallel" does not apply -- you made an assertion for "intelligent design" based on evidence, and I just asked what you had. Looks like an empty bladder.
This stems form your lack of seeing the intellegent design or simply from ignoring it.
ROFLOL. Nothing like a little arrogant pseudo superiority ("I can see something you cannot"). Of course it is simple to see design in everything around you. It is simple to be struck with awe at it. It is simple to assign such design to some superior force, but simple as that is it does not make it so.
I can also see the evidence of bad design, incomplete design, design failures.
I can also see how the appearance of design develops through mutation and natural selection.
I can also see how some really intelligent improvements could be made to a number of basic elements.
What you don't seem to grasp is that evidence for a concept is insufficient alone to substantiate a concept when there is evidence against the concept -- the evidence against needs to be refuted or the concept adapted to include it or it is falsified by the evidence against.
ID is falsified by the evidence of bad design, incomplete design, and design failures.
ID is the simple answer for those who cannot see how apparent design occurs, how distinctive features can evolve, but it is not the only answer, nor is it even close to the best answer - it gives up finding the answer.
ID is the simple answer for those who do not look at the bad designs, incomplete designs and the design failures. If you only look at part of the picture you don't see the rest.
It's like being enamoured with a kaleidoscope and never looking in the back end to see that it is only an apparent design caused by mirrors and randomly jumbled beads.
Then I can only wonder about your ignorance level.
LOL. Ad hominems are (a) against the forum guidelines, (b) a logical fallacy and (c) usually the resort of a losing argument. Of course the rest of your pile of assertions in that paragraph are nothing more than the argument from incredulity, another logical fallacy, and irrelevant to the question of the explanatory power of evolution to show how the features under discussion could come to be. Simply being amazed by the wonders of the world is not a basis for any knowledge of how things work (which is what science is looking for).
Now I ask you, can any evolutionist demonstrate any evolutionary process by turning a species into another completely different species?
No, because that is not evolution, thus it would not - could not - "demonstrate" evolution.
That is another creationist strawman fallacy. Speciation occurs and new species are observed every year. Of course they are not "completely different" because they are descendent species and always have characteristics of their parent species. A "completely different" species would be a creationist hopeful monster and not evolution.
Your objection to creation is the product of your lack of understanding about the nature of creation. Creation in not about substituting science with religion, It is about learning science and aquiring more knowledge in order for us to better appreciate the intellegent creation and the supperior wisdom of our creator, and that does not oppose science.
ROFLOL. You are talking to a Deist. I just take this further than you do, to it's logical conclusion, with no blinders. I can help you get there but you are going to have to give up some false beliefs.
Your frequent and repeated assertion that "Evolution is full of such unproven claims" is denial of the evidence that abounds and contradicts your claim that your vision of ID "does not oppose science" -- either stop equivocating or stop deluding yourself.
Evolution is no different than any other science, it is about learning and aquiring more knowledge in order for us to better appreciate and understand the world and the universe around us.
What marks a fundamentalist to me is not what evidence they accept, but what evidence they deny.
Bad design? There is not a single example of bad design in nature that destroys and not benefits organisms. Many species have gone extinct is because of natural and environmental effects and not because they are poorly designed. It is realy hard for me to understand why can you not see this intellegent design. Im sure you can see it but you have to ignore it because you have unconditionally surrendered to the evolution dogma.
This is an argument of pure denial. Do you not see the contradiction between extinct and good design? Surrendered to Dogma? No, I look at the evidence with both (badly) designed eyes open (but not so the blind spot interferes with the vision).
See! you keep saying "it has evolved" without any evidence. Evolution is full of such unproven claims.
Again, if you are going to "quote" me, then do so verbatim and not with your rewording of what I said.
What I said was "Many species have evolved ways of doing things that humans have not figured out yet, " and this comment is based on the evidence of evolution that is abundant. I repeat, evolution has been observed and the evidence is so complete that creationists cannot honestly deny it.
We can see the links between, say, hummingbird and swift and between, say, giraffe and okapi, and understand how the concept of common ancestor and change in species over time can easily account for the small remaining differences between them.
Science does not prove claims. It tests theories through predictions, and those that are not invalidated are considered more robust, but they are never considered proven.
The evidence of evolution is abundant, it has been observed in action, and there is no other theory that can explain the fossil record in such detail.
Here are very few of the numerous examples of intellegent design:
-The design in helicopters is based on the design in hummingbird's flight.
-The design in airplanes is based on the design in birds aerodynamic bodies.
-The design of submarines is based on the design of fish's buoyancy
-The design of the Effile tower's structure in Paris is based on the disign of the bone.
What a croc of ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. What website do you get such erroneous information from?
I've already dealt with this fallacy regarding hummers and helicopters.
I don't see how any part of an airplane is analogous to a birds body in any significant way -- especially the early airplanes (think Wright Brothers). As design has progressed (and our understanding of aerodynamics improved) there have been a significant number of convergent aspects of design, but these are superficial -- the wings are stiff, the x-section shape is not the same (airplanes are more aerodynamic than even bird wings) and the support structure is entirely different.
Same with submarines ... the first ones were pretty round and didn't 'dive' at all. Again I look for "fish" on the googled sites like
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/...nes/centennial/subhistory.html
And I come up empty. Turtle, yes, fish no. Again, the increased knowledge of hydrodynamics improved design of the submarine shape, but there is no real analogy to a fish body. The manner of ballasting the ship to rise and sink is nothing more than simple physics.
And I know of no bone or bone structure that looks remotely like the Eiffel Tower, designed as a showcase for steel design based on engineering principles IIRC. A quick google on {Eiffel Tower design} nets:
La tour Eiffel, Site OFFICIEL : billets, infos, actualit....
Again I searched the page for some reference to bone and got nothing,
The plan to build a tower 300 metres high was conceived as part of preparations for the World's Fair of 1889.
Emile Nouguier and Maurice Koechlin, the two chief engineers in Eiffel's company, had the idea for a very tall tower in June 1884. It was to be designed like a large pylon with four columns of lattice work girders, separated at the base and coming together at the top, and joined to each other by more metal girders at regular intervals. The company had by this time mastered perfectly the principle of building bridge supports. The tower project was a bold extension of this principle up to a height of 300 metres - equivalent to the symbolic figure of 1000 feet. On September 18 1884 Eiffel registered a patent "for a new configuration allowing the construction of metal supports and pylons capable of exceeding a height of 300 metres".
(bold in the original.
Once again it looks like your unsupported assertions are refuted and invalidated by a relatively easy bit of research
What can stop it? Simple, reptiles do not have the genes that code for these flight systems in birds, ...
Stop equivocating. The discussion was not about flight but metabolism - the whole chain is:
Mr Jack again writes:
Slowly. Their high metabolism is a product of several factors
How can high metabolism evolve slowly and by a gradual change?
What can stop it from evolving slowly and by gradual change?
We were discussing how high metabolism could evolve not flight.
NOTE AGAIN: flight had already evolved before humminbirds so the evolution of flight is not an impediment to the evolution of hummingbirds from already flying birds (swifts?).
So what can stop high metabolism from evolving slowely and by gradual change?
Can you answer the question this time?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mr_matrix, posted 07-06-2006 5:26 PM mr_matrix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by mr_matrix, posted 07-12-2006 3:30 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 95 (329826)
07-08-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by MangyTiger
07-07-2006 9:20 PM


Figure 8 flight not unique
I wouldn't call it "flying backwards"...
Ok so given the topic is flying backwards you pretty much state yourself it's irrelevant to the discussion so we can just forget you brought it up.
But I did say it was maneuvering backwards. Not elegant, not pretty, but doing it when necessary to stay over prey.
Maybe it's different in the US but every bird of prey I've watched over here (and thinking about it on every nature documentary I've ever watched) hovers by riding a thermal, and any backwards movement is just adjusting position within the thermal.
The american kestrel and the osprey will flap to hover without aid of thermals. The kestrel can do it longer than the osprey (size\weight to lift ratio), and employs a wing motion very similar to the figure 8 of the hummer (finally someone mentions this aspect).
http://www.fresnochaffeezoo.com/animals/americanKestral.html
BEHAVIOR:
Kestrels hunts from poles, wires or trees. Its flight is sometimes fast, sometimes buoyant, and it will hover over sighted prey, dropping on it when the timing is right. The "dropping" method is called kiting, slipping down feet first on vertically held wings. The descent can be stopped instantly by beginning the figure-eight hover motion, and in this manner corrections in attack can be made.
Also see
Hovering Flight of Birds
The point being that the figue 8 motion is not unique to hummers. They just do it better.
Choosing a species that is "best" at some ability or other, and then claiming that "wow, it's better than all the others,...
And you're addressing this paragraph to me why exactly? You asked 'what was unique about hummigbird flight?' ... Keep your condescending irrelevancies to yourself in future please.
Well it's not a figure 8 motion in the wings - that is just a difference in degree of ability not in category of ability.
But that comment was directed at the original claim and was not intended as a critique of your post.
Again, what is so unique about hummingbird flight? What is\are the feature(s) that would show up in fossils?
Well according to the Smithsonian Institute it's the elbow and wrist bones:
This could also be an adaptation to allow more muscle development for the hovering flight style than other flight modes in a particularly small body - every fraction of an ounce is critical: it appears hummers don't have down feathers to save weight.
The wing is also very high aspect and this would also maximize the hovering ability with less interference for the figure 8 motion -- not surprising in a bird that spends so much time hovering to feed.
The article also contains some a mention of the difference between the hummingbird wing motion and that of other birds (and helicopters!):
The pattern of the wing-beat is more of a figure-eight than a circle like a helicopter or an up and down motion like other birds.
Well that certainly takes care of the helicopter design being based on hummingbirds.
Go on, admit it - they're unique - Trivial Pursuit is never wrong
Riiiight. Again, it's not in the figure 8 motion of the wings - that is just a difference in degree of ability not in category of ability.
Hi RAZD. Sorry I didn't reply sooner, I was serving my first suspension (yea! I've arrived at EvC )
Welcome to the club.
Edited by RAZD, : changes subtitle

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by MangyTiger, posted 07-07-2006 9:20 PM MangyTiger has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 95 (331356)
07-12-2006 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mr_matrix
07-12-2006 3:30 PM


mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
What you call ignorance is creation logic that you do not understand. If creation logic does not meet with your evolutionist logic then it is a matter of disagreement and not ignorance.
ROFLOL. I suppose you also have your own kind of math so that the time adds up correctly? 2+2= whatever I want it to? Is that how you get a young earth?
No there are not different kinds of logic -- there is logic and there is delusion. Now what I have used (and you presumably label "evolutionist logic" seeing as it has shown your argument to be riddled with real logical fallacies ...) meets the formal criteria of logic:
Logic - Wikipedia
As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic can therefore be very large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialist analyses of reasoning such as probably correct reasoning and arguments involving causality. Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory.
The formal definition and criteria of logic apply to everyone. If what you use does not meet the definition and criteria of logic, then you are not using logic but something else. If you call it logic you are deluded.
See how it works?
This means that all your claims are based on mostly imagination and no proofs. A scientific scenrio with no proof is no more important than a fantasy tale.
The difference between science and fantasy is evidence. Science is supported by evidence, the theories are not just imagination but logically (again by the formal definition and criteria) derived from the evidence.
It doesn't stop there either -- it makes predictions that if {X} is true then {Y} will happen.
And it doesn't stop there -- science then tests those predictions to see if they pan out.
The results of those tests are new evidence -- evidence that either matches the predictions (thus indicating that the theory CAN be true), or that doesn't match the predictions (thus indicating that the theory CAN'T be true).
Notice that the best you can get is an indication that the theory CAN be true. The more a theory is tested the stronger that sense of CAN be true become, but it never becomes MUST be true: that requires absolute proof.
The difference between fantasy and science is that it is fairly easy to show that fantasy CAN'T be true unless there are substantial changes to the way we understand the rest of the universe.
Thus if you claim evolution is a fantasy, you should be able to demonstrate that it CAN'T be true. Making fantasy claims does not do that.
Absent such a demonstration the logical (again by the formal definition and criteria) conclusion is that it CAN be true: the realms {CAN} and {CAN'T} are mutually exclusive.
Therefore, evolution is full of speculations based on some individuals preconceptions.
This is leaping to a conclusion based on falsified precepts and erroneous information. That is fantasy logic, ie - delusion.
People with entirely different backgrounds, culture, and education come to the same conclusions when they do the same tests, they each have different preconceptions, but the result is the same.
Your conclusion has been invalidated as the fantasy it is.
Note that mentioning few newly discovered species is not the answer, because they are newly discovered by us and not newly evolved.
Because you are ignorant of the facts does not change them or make them go away. Note (1) that AiG acknowledges that speciation occurs, as they concede that the evidence is too overwhelming to ignore or try to hand wave away and (2) there are species that have evolved that could not have lived previously - consider the nylon eating bacteria: why\how would it eat nylon before that was invented?
Willfull ignorance of evidence is not logic, it is delusion.
Just turning your back on the link and saying that it is ignorant doesnot make it true. The article is based on true facts based on real sources and everything is well referenced.
ROFLOL. You wish. I also showed at least ONE of its misrepresentations to be false. It is falsified by a number of facts that have already been discussed. The bat and bird wing, the thylacine and wolf skull top, etc. are only superficially similar, and have evolved under similar circumstances to meet similar needs, flight and biting prey.
Did you even look at the pictures that I linked for the wolf and thylacine? Do you still think they look like similar animals?
Look at this picture:
Thylacine with wide open jaw
Now here's a wolf:
http://www.geocities.com/dragonfuzz13/WolfSnarl03.jpg
(fromhttp://www.geocities.com/dragonfuzz13/wolf)
Notice when you look from the front how different the teeth are in the thylacine mouth than in the wolf. Perhaps you can find a better picture of a wolf with it's jaw wide open to show how similar they are?
Your website only shows the view from one angle because they want you to think they are more similar than they really are: this - at best - is misrepresenting the evidence in order to fool the gullible.
I said it was full of false and misleading information because that is easy to demonstrate, not because I'm turning my back on it: I'm looking it full in the face and laughing at it's ignorance.
Nature is full of examples of homoplasy (analogous features) that give evolutionists a hard time in explaining their origin.
In your dreams maybe. There is no difficulty in explaining the different evolution of bat and bird wings. Evolutionists are not fooled by superficial resemblances, they also know of many other forms of flight - insects, flying fish, gliding squirrels and frogs and snakes as well as prehistoric organisms like pterodactyls - forms of flight where the lack of similarity tells the logical (again by the formal definition and criteria) person evaluating the evidence that this is not a difficult thing to evolve, much the way webbed feet are not difficult to evolve for all the wide variety of webfooted animals in semi-aquatic environments.
The definition of homoplasy, btw, is:
ho·mo·pla·sy n.
Correspondence between parts or organs arising from
evolutionary convergence.
(yellow for emPHAsis)
I know this, but the question is how two or more totally different species that are not related to each other can possess very similar features? I can clearly see that this is an evidence of common design not convergent evolution fanatasy that has no scientific value or evidence.
Well I look at the bat and the bird and the wolf and the thylacine and I see very different features, so this "very similar features" must be another piece of your "creationist logic" that denies the evidence in favor of some fantasy or other.
Convergent features serve similar purposes - the purpose of wings, whether bird, bug, bat, boa, beast or "whirlybird" seed or fish, is to fly. How that can happen is a matter of aerodynamics, how the aerodynamics is realized depends on what "equipment" was available to modify by gradual processes over time. There is nothing that prevents similar shapes from occurring and can easily be many reasons for similar shapes to occur. The aerodynamics of flight is one of those over-riding reasons for similar end results -- it just works better if you follow the basic "rules" of what makes a good wing. The surprise would be if similar features did NOT evolve for animals in similar {habitats\eco-niches\situations}, THAT would be contrary to evolutionary predictions.
Convergent features serve similar purposes - the purpose of jaws, whether wolf or thylacine or velociraptor, is to bite and hold onto prey. How that can happen is a matter of {muscle\jaw\tooth} dynamics and how that dynamics is realized depends on what "equipment" was available to modify by gradual processes over time. There is nothing that prevents similar shapes from occurring and can easily be many reasons for similar shapes to occur. The dynamics of biting is one of those over-riding reasons for similar end results -- it just works better if you follow the basic "rules" of what makes a good bite. The surprise would be if similar features did NOT evolve for animals in similar {habitats\eco-niches\situations}, THAT would be contrary to evolutionary predictions.
Convergent features serve similar purposes - the purpose of webbed feet, whether duck or frog or lizard or platypus or ferret, is to propel an organism through water. How that can happen is a matter of hydrodynamics and how that hydrodynamics is realized depends on what "equipment" was available to modify by gradual processes over time. There is nothing that prevents similar shapes from occurring and can easily be many reasons for similar shapes to occur. The hydrodynamics of webbed feet is one of those over-riding reasons for similar end results -- it just works better if you follow the basic "rules" of what makes a good propulsion system. The surprise would be if similar features did NOT evolve for animals in similar {habitats\eco-niches\situations}, THAT would be contrary to evolutionary predictions.
This is a quote from the link above that is made by evolutionist Frans de Waal:
"One big question concerns convergent evolution-the finding that life comes up with remarkably similar solutions to the same problem more than once. The camera eye is a good example. What is it that makes life navigate towards particular solutions? Is there a deeper pattern or set of principles at work, some kind of underlying "landscape" across which life is forced to move?"(reference in the linked article)
If the article is full of misinformation as you say, then why dont you check the quotes in it like this one.
I notice it doesn't give de Waal's answer to the question he posed. Did you look up the reference to see the actual quote? How about you find the quote from Frans de Waal with the rest of what he says and post that instead of the quote mined snippet? (And btw, quote mining is another form of misrepresentation - making people appear to say things they are not saying.)
There are differences between marsupials and placentals, but there are striking more similarities. Evolutionists say this is example of convergent evolution but how? Tazmenian wolves behave just like normal wolves (with few differences) they are still carnivores that run and hunt animals exactly just like other wolves (hunting is not the only similarity).
Again, someone has been feeding you misinformation or you are just not checking the facts.
Being a carnivore is hardly what I would call a "striking similarity" -- seeing as animals are classified into three main groups: carnivores, herbivore, and omnivores. Must be that "creationist logic" (delusion) again.
That they both hunt prey is also just astounding -- something I would never expect of two different carnivores eh? ROFLOL.
Finally, if you actually ever read the site I linked about the thylacine you will see that it is a slow runner (wolves are fast) as well as the fact that it stands on it's hind feet ("sole walking") in a manner that wolves do not do, and the manner in which they use their legs running is different - they "pace" (the "gait of a horse in which both feet on one side are lifted and put down together") to a wolfs "gallop" (the "fast gait of a horse; a two-beat stride during which all four legs are off the ground simultaneously") - definitions from dictionary.com. The thylacine site also says:
Despite the occasional claims that thylacines work together in hunting packs, E. Guiler states that there is no actual evidence for this. It has been reported however, that thylacines will lie in wait in a cat-like manner to ambush prey
Even though there is slight difference in locomotion, but they still resemble placental wolves in striking similarity (even in the shape of the skull), just making a fuss about few differences and elaborating on them does not make the two wolves totally different from each other.
The really ridiculous thing about this is that this has got to be one of the worst examples of convergent evolution, and you are really trying to force things to appear more similar than they really are -- either you are really misinformed or you are intentionally misinforming yourself.
How does the fact that two animals both have jaws with teeth in them that they use to bite prey show a relationship that is more puzzling than convergent evolution?
Other similarities noted on the website on thylacines mentioned and linked before:
The form of the thylacine's stripe pattern is remarkably similar to that of the African Zebra duiker (Cephalophus zebra).
the thylacine does show extensive similarities to the Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) in limb length to body length, as well as to Dasyurus.
These similarities are just as important as the superficial one with the wolf jaw. Are you now going to claim that they behave just like small antelopes or leopards?
Similarly, other marsupial animals (monkeys, squirels, bears...etc) behave in strikigly similar manner to that of the placental counterparts despite some physiological differences.
The other animals are marsupials and not monkeys, squirrels or bears. That they have common names noting superficial similarities does not make them the same kind of animal.
Look at the pictures of what these animals look like and you will see more resemblance to an opossum than a monkey or squirrel. The Koala is also not at all like a bear. Sheeeesh, talk about GULLIBLE.
Rotating wings on top of the body? This is pure incrudility and misunderstanding of the argument.
You were the one that said that the helicopter was designed based on the hummingbird. The helicopter has a rotating set of wings, not flapping ones.
How about a simple lesson in aerodynamics for beginners? In any airplane we find wings, whether it is the old Wright brothers' plane or modern ones. Why is there wings? Simple, wings are there to generate lift. The wings are slanted so that the air above the wing flows faster that below it. This creates a difference of pressure which lifts the airplane upwards and make it fly. Where did this idea of wings originally come from? From BIRDS, from the already existing aerodynamic design in birds.
You said helicopter based on hummingbird, now you are equivocating and moving the goal posts. Typical.
{abe}
mr_matrix writes:
Message 25
The design of the helicopter is based on the design in the hummingbird's flight.
I'm glad you realize that this was an erroneous statement: what you say now contradicts that.
You need a lesson in aerodynamics much more than me -- you misunderstand it. Badly. The lift generated from aerodynamic designed wings is due to the curvature in cross-section, not to any "slant" - you should be talking about {angle of attack} instead of "slant" if you are talking aerodynamics. The angle of attack determines the degree of lift, airflow redirection, and the degree of drag involved. But aerodynamically designed wings are not necessary for flight -- they are just more efficient at it. This is why a bird wing is more efficient than a bat wing: one is more aerodynamically shaped than the other. But flat wings also can be used for flight, not because the generate "lift" (technically they don't) but because they redirect the flow of air. As long as they are pushed through the air fast enough they will fly, but an aerodynamically designed shape will fly with less pushing force.
{/abe}
The first designs people used to try to fly were copies of the wings of birds - model something that works. They failed. Then they went with shapes based on kites (you know those toys on the ends of strings? They've been around a loooong time eh?) and the first successful wings -- Wright Bros? Sure looks a LOT like a kite.
The more we learned about aerodynamics the better we understood the mechanisms of flight. Since then the wings have evolved in design to be somewhat similar to a bird wind in cross-section -- not in overall shape or in manner of usage.
Designed wings have a high aspect ratio, much higher than the highest used by birds. Why? Because it is more efficient, and we can use structural elements to support such a shape without the limitations that birds have. Look DOWN on a plane and see how different it is from a bird.
The reason that birds and airplane wings both conform to aerodynamics is because of aerodynamics not because of any necessary design: that is the way flight works best.
Now in regard to helicopters, they fly in different way than normal airplanes. In a normal plane, the air flows horizontally but in copters it flows vertically allowing it to hover and rise vertically.
Absolutely false. You are really misinformed - or deluded.
The helicopter blades rotate in a horizontal (normally for lift) direction -- they are passing horizontally through the air to generate lift in exactly the same way as if the air was flowing horizontally over wings.
The reason they do this is that the aerodynamics are the same for the helicopter blade as it is for an airplane wing.
. This feature already exists in hummingbirds as well as other insects. The majority of birds use horizontal air flow to generate lift, while the hummingbird uses its rapid wing flapping back and forth to generate vertical lift
Other insects? you are either very confused, very misinformed or very ignorant. Or mistaken.
The hummingbird generates lift in exactly the same way as other birds, because that is the way aerodynamics works.
There is intellegent design in many species and systems in nature. There is too mush design to be ignored. In any designed system there must be a designer, this is an evident fact.
ROFLOL. Logical fallacies again.
All you need is a system to select more optimum features for a certain behavior. Natural selection is that system. There is no need for a designer to make something better, and that is all that is necessary for evolution to work -- gradual change in species over time, natural selection of organisms that are more fit for an environment than others: eyes, webs, wings, just modifications of existing features to the advantage of those with them.
There is too mush design to be ignored.
There is too much BAD design, LACK of design, FAILURE of design to be ignored.
The problem with any theory (and we'll assume for the sake of argument that somewhere "intellegent design" has one) is that it doesn't need to be based only on some possible evidence supporting it -- it needs to explain ALL the evidence, especially the evidence that CONTRADICTS the theory.
{abe} Remember above where I said:
The results of those tests are new evidence -- evidence that either matches the predictions (thus indicating that the theory CAN be true), or that doesn't match the predictions (thus indicating that the theory CAN'T be true).
You need to have a concept that deals with the CAN'T be true evidence rather than just the CAN be true evidence to have a valid concept.{/abe}
It's even worse when you don't have a theory but a fantasy based on wishful thinking.
The argument that there appears to be design therefore there must be design is just a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. That means it is a fantasy ... or a delusion.
If you are going to argue for design, then you need to address both sides of the design controversy, right?
http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... -->http://EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy... -->EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...< !--UE-->
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added info, changed subtitle

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mr_matrix, posted 07-12-2006 3:30 PM mr_matrix has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-16-2006 2:41 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 56 by mr_matrix, posted 08-11-2006 2:10 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 38 of 95 (332377)
07-16-2006 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by BobAliceEve
07-16-2006 2:41 PM


Re: mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
Belfry has it pretty well covered.
Would you please clairify the sentence:
It is more fully described on the link provided -- it's another thread on this forum so any discussion of this alternative design theory should be addressed on that thread rather than here, so this one can focus on the ... what's the topic? oh yeah, the creatortionista article... misinformation.
(I thought it was supposed to be bob and carol and ted and alice ...?)
PS: I see that name-calling and derogatory statements are still the evidence of choice here.
Showing concepts to be false is neither. Noting when people demonstrate or virtually admit to being ignorant of certain facts is not either as well. Do you have something else in mind?
Calling ignorance is not a "derogatory" statement -- it is an easily cured condition (you can learn). Everyone is ignorant about something.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-16-2006 2:41 PM BobAliceEve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-17-2006 4:43 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 95 (332462)
07-17-2006 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by BobAliceEve
07-17-2006 4:43 AM


what evidence for design
Equating my name to a porn movie is insulting and demeaning.
Actually it was a comedy.
one review
another review
lighten up.
Even saying ROFLOL is demeaning - why say it? It does not contribute to the discussion.
Perhaps because the argument was so funny.
Actually, the way used it is attacking the argument and not the messenger: you make a ridiculous argument and it will be met with evidence that it is ridiculous. Repeat the ridiculous argument after it has been shown to be ridiculous and the argument becomes so ludicrous that it is a joke.
It is more useful, of course, to attach the wings to a rotating pole and have them spin and leave the body fairly steady.
And this relates to how a hummingbird flies how? The claim was that helicopters design was based on hummingbirds -- that is the issue you need to substantiate to support the fantasy argument that was presented.
I think that the claim that it represents both sides (or the other side) of ID is misleading. In the main it is decieving because silly design does not preclude intelligent design.
It is not meant to be present both sides of "ID" it is meant to present the OTHER side of the design controversy (the NOT-SO-intelligent side). The proponents of ID have claimed that presenting "both sides" is necessary while they misrepresent evolution and the evidence for design. They assume a false dichotomy that says "if not{A} then {B}" when there are many possibilities: one of which is Silly Design. I just say that both sides of the Design Controversy need to be presented to be fair and balanced.
In the main it is decieving because silly design does not preclude intelligent design. ... What you see as an argument against design I see as an argument against evolution; why would something evolve like a platapus did?
Why not? What prevents it from happening?
"Intelligent Design" does not preclude evolution from happening at any level.
You are free to "see" what you like. You are not free to pick and choose evidence and to deny other evidence and then think you have an argument. The robustness of a concept is not in what evidence supports it, but in the weakness of evidence that contradicts it.
I would be pleased to support the forum financially by renting some space then organizing a site truly representative of facts for both sides of each issue
Talk to admin (Percy) - but you may want to present some material first to see how it holds up.
There is no "both sides" -- that is a fabrication of people with a weak argument and a lack of evidence: if there were any real evidence for design there would be no argument. There is also a lot of evidence on the weakness of the design argument.
I suspect that at this point you are at least tempted to tell me that I am wilfully ignorant.
No, I'll let you demonstrate whether you are or not.
The repeated discussions have driven us to a private host if I read correctly.
Hardly. This site stands on it's own.
"Dr Dino" -- Kent Hovind -- is just one example of many sites that misrepresent facts, see: kent-hovind.com -
What is discussed on this site are concepts that people have presented for discussion, wherever they come from, whatever the original poster chooses to present.
Again about the article, it is fairly devoid of discussable material.
Agreed. It is a list of things the author does not know about -- what's to discuss?
We could discuss what the author doesn't know (speculate on ignorance) or we could discuss the information that is available and which shows that each instance is at most a difference in degree of an evolved trait and not a difference in kind of trait.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added last sentence

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-17-2006 4:43 AM BobAliceEve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-19-2006 6:47 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 95 (333241)
07-19-2006 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by BobAliceEve
07-19-2006 6:47 AM


Re: what evidence for design
And, a funny porn movie is still a porn movie and your statement that "actually it is a comedy" is proof that you were demeaning.
No, it is evidence that I was refering to comedy -- an adult comedy about sexual freedom in the 60's is still a comedy and not a porn movie:
porn
n : creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire
From one of the reviews linked:
While its particulars remain rooted in the sexual revolution of the late 1960s, Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice is remarkably timeless as a classic comedy of manners. ... that begins when sophisticated couple Bob and Carol (Robert Culp, Natalie Wood) attend a weekend retreat that opens their eyes to the possibilities of open marriage and mutual acceptance of extramarital affairs. ... The film hasn't lost any of its punch, perhaps because American sexual politics have returned to the conservatism that existed before Bob and Carol emerged as the signature comedy of the swinging sixties.
If you call a dog's tail a leg, then how many legs does it have? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.
Please respond to my statement that silly or malicious design does not preclude intelligent design (as in my Saturn clutch).
The logical conclusion of the evidence for {Bad\Silly\Malicious\Malevolent} design is fallability, pranksterism, uncaring and evil: totally at odds with the way the "intelligent" designer is normally considered -- this is why {BOTH SIDES} of the design controversy need to be discussed.
The platapus "bill", the giraffes long neck, etc, are {INSIGNIFICANT} in a discussion about evolution because there is no formula to put them into the {CAN'T} or {CAN} regions (it seems that we agree on this?).
The evidence is that they {CAN} happen by evolution. They are "{INSIGNIFICANT}" in that they are differences in {degree} of evolution and not in {kind} of evolution. There may well be disagreements about HOW it MAY have happened but that doesn't invalidate the precept that it {CAN} happen.
There is no evidence or mechanism that can PREVENT them from happening, and until that mechanism is identified, and presented with substantiating evidence, there is no way to honestly claim it {CAN'T} happen.
Any claim that {X} CAN'T happen needs to be substantiated by the evidence and mechanism that demonstrates that it CAN'T happen, and until then it is NOT "{INSIGNIFICANT}" that this can't be demonstrated.
The speculation is that it {CAN} happen by design. There is no evidence of this nor is there any proposed mechanism by which it {MAY} happen -- other than by evolution or by {magic}.
If it is done by evolution then there is no conflict with the evolution {mechanism\manner\method}, and thus this does not demonstrate any {necessary input} of the design concept as an explanation over the one provided by evolution.
If it is done by {magic} then there needs to be evidence of such {magic} in operation to give this concept the same validity as the evidence for evolution in operation (observed speciation events etcetera).
Finally, when the forum was rehosted (due to disk space and traffic issues) a notice was sent out that space is available for rent to help support the forum. That offer may have been retracted. Please see message 1 at this link.
That's why I said contact Percy.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-19-2006 6:47 AM BobAliceEve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-21-2006 6:25 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 95 (333923)
07-21-2006 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by BobAliceEve
07-21-2006 6:25 AM


Re: what evidence for design
You are equivocating and quoting out of context: quote mining.
Percy runs this site, always has.
The "repeated discussions" have not forced us to a "private" host -- the site was moved to a new host because of the volume (not the content).
You suggested setting up a site "cohosting a site ...and to evaluate facts as to their quality of being evidence for evolution" (or design) -- a different issue than hosting this forum
I said contact Percy.
... it was an attempt to equate Bob, Alice, and Eve with Bob and Carol, Ted and Alice which equals ... which is demeaning.
First you said it was porn in an attempt to portray it as demeaning, it isn't -- it is comedy. Now you quote mine one part of the review to try to substantiate your claim. The reviewer also says it is about manners.
Is a movie about manners demeaning? Is discussing"... the possibilities of open marriage and mutual acceptance of extramarital affairs. ..." demeaning? Is finding humor in the discussion (ie - what the movies is about) demeaning? Have you seen the movie?
imh(ysa)o you are struggling to try to portray this comment:
(I thought it was supposed to be bob and carol and ted and alice ...?)
as a proposed possible example of "demeaning" behavior in order to portray my behavior as universally demeaning (per you're original comment). By this view all humor is demeaning. While I agree that a lot can be, that doesn't make ALL humor demeaning, and this is what you are attempting to do.
One could also argue that this (your original comment):
Message 36
PS: I see that name-calling and derogatory statements are still the evidence of choice here.
Is name-calling and derogatory, especially when you have not established that it is a common, to say nothing of universal, fact. Your wide paint brush also covers your posts as well. Welcome to the club.
Silly design does not preclude intelligent design. ... is both silly design and intelligent design. While I have no interest in Intelligent design I can argue that Silly does not preclude Intelligent.
I have seen things that are silly with no intelligent cause, so yes silly can preclude intelligent. The two are not mutually exclusive, but each have areas that do preclude the other, so one is not totally contained by the other.
The issue then, when discussing what appears to be design in nature (and whether that is possible evidence for design), is whether the evidence we have is better explained by the intentional purpose of the design.
Note the following:

Mission Statement

The Silly Design Institutes's mission is to make Americans fully aware of both sides of the Design debate, whether they want to be or not.

We feel that both sides of the design debate need to be provided in schools and in the media, to inform the public and the students so that they can make up their own minds and not be dictated to by self-serving organizations, and to this end the Institute:

  • supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of "Intelligent" Design;
  • supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theories for investigating Silly Design;
  • supports research by scientists and other scholars developing falsification tests to demonstrate the superior scientific basis of Silly Design compared to other design "theories"
  • encourages the media to portray Silly Design as not just a valid, but the ne plus ultra alternative to "Intelligent" Design whether it has been shown to be one or not
  • encourages schools, colleges and universities to improve science education by teaching students more fully about the various concepts of the Design Spectrum, including the scientific weaknesses various Design theories as well as any strengths.
Open issue: Is any proponent of the theory of evolution interested ...
I repeat (3rd or 4th time): contact Percy (email admin)! YOU are the one leaving this "OPEN"

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-21-2006 6:25 AM BobAliceEve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-26-2006 6:11 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 95 (334130)
07-21-2006 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by BobAliceEve
07-21-2006 6:25 AM


Moving on ...
Sumary of the issue of {CAN} vs {CAN'T}: anything that CAN happen is equally valid as evidence for evolution, magic, creation, alien interference, etc. The theory of evolution does not have any special claim on such evidence to the preclusion of other possibilities equally falling into the {CAN} group.
RAZD writes:
Notice that the best you can get is an indication that the theory CAN be true. The more a theory is tested the stronger that sense of CAN be true become, but it never becomes MUST be true: that requires absolute proof.
Open issue: Is any proponent of the theory of evolution interested in cohosting a site using space here if possible (and I'll pay) to do side by side comparision (line by line if necessary) of evidence that, if true, clearly puts evolution itself (ie not the theory) into the {CAN'T} category and to evaluate facts as to their quality of being evidence for evolution. I believe that cohosting is essential in order to expose fantasy (as RAZD so wonderfully states it) at the detail level that will be acceptable to both sides of the discussion. I will avoid the {CAN} because CAN supports all theories.
There are different levels of {CAN} that need to be distinguished, or you fall into the creatoritionista definition of a {theory} as just any old idea, any old fantasy, all having equal credence.
So far I have seen no evidence that magic {CAN'T} happen, but I have also not seen any evidence that it {HAS} happened, nor any evidence - or even hypothesis - for {HOW} it could happen (If you know of any please provide references).
Now looking at your statement:
comparision ... of evidence that, if true, clearly puts evolution itself (ie not the theory) into the {CAN'T} category
This means that you will ignore all the evidence that not only says "evolution itself (ie not the theory)" {CAN} happen, but that it in fact {HAS} happened.
There are several (hundred? thousand? too many to ignore anyway) instances where the actual evolving of new species has been observed, and even ardent creationists at AiG recognize this fact (ie not a theory).
For reference, see one of my favorite website pages:
Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis
"No new species have been produced."
This is not true”new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the "kind," and involves no new genetic information.
This usually leads to discussions of what is "micro"evolution and what is "macro"evolution, how you define "new" and "information" etc etc, but the essential point is that "evolution itself (ie not the theory)" is recognized as a fact.
We also have the evidence of genetics and mutation and selection that show {HOW} that evolution {HAS} occurred.
Thus this requires any proposition that evolution {CAN'T} happen must also provide some real validated explanation for what {HAS} happened and why genetics appeared (erroneously) to be {HOW} it happened.
This does not need to be done for {MAGIC} because {MAGIC} has no demonstrated {HAS} or {HOW} that needs to be debunked to then challenge it into the {CAN'T} category.
You have to look at the whole picture to see which concepts are best at explaining the whole picture.
I would take Modulus up on it as a new thread first to see how it goes and then see if there is enough to dedicate a whole extra website to (unless you are going to maintain it).
I would also think that any discussion that focused solely on hard evidence that "evolution itself (ie not the theory)" {CAN'T} happen will be either very short, or very lacking in real evidence.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-21-2006 6:25 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 95 (335674)
07-27-2006 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by BobAliceEve
07-26-2006 6:11 AM


Re: what evidence for design / moving on
"Repeated discussions" would seem to contribute to volume would it not? You need to connect the dots correctly.
Percy ran the site before, he runs it after it was moved -- it was and still is a "private" site in that regard.
There is no difference in the {way\manner\topics\etc} in the way the site is run between {before} and {after} OTHER than ability to handle increased volume.
But if you want a definitive answer, then ... gosh, contact Percy.
Regarding your "moving on" post. I will maintain the site.
Then move on.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : typosey - ps: contact Percy ...

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-26-2006 6:11 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 95 (340411)
08-15-2006 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by mr_matrix
08-11-2006 2:10 PM


mr_matrix STILL manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
then i will be leaving again since im not very interested in long debates on this site.
In other words there is no need to address replies to you as you are abandoning the debate due to insufficient supporting material and inability to put together a logical cohesive rebuttal of any of the challenges to your assertions.
Thus my comments are directed at those that think there is some value to mr_matrixes posts.
Most of his post is blather of rather insignificant import, as it makes the same mistakes as previous posts and is tediously repetitious, so I'll hit the main points:
It does not need different logics to calculate this because 4 is a universal answer that everyone knows, ...
mr_matrix claimed in Message 31 that there is a different logic for creationists, but then abandons this concept here before giving us any examples of how it works ....
There is no difference between the universality of 2+2=4 and the logical structure of:
precept #1 - if {A} then {B}
precept #2 - if {B} then {C}
conclusion - if {A} then {C}
If the two precepts are true the conclusion is true in the same way that 2+2=4 is true -- it doesn't matter what the precepts are or where they came from.
there is no "evolutionist" logic, and there is no special "creationist" logic -- amply demonstrated by the total lack of any examples from mr_matrix.
Logical Conclusion: the existence of any kind of "special creationist logic" is refuted.
... since i dont need you to teach me what logic is. The last thing i would need is to learn logic from an evolutionist ...
This is a prime example of the fact that mr_matrix does indeed need lessons in logic, as this is a logical fallacy of giving more importance to {who} is making the argument rather than {what} the argument involves. It is like the ad hominum and argument from authority in that regard except that this is the rejection of the source: it is blatant bias and bigotry and not reason or rationality.
... show the evolutionists' desperation to absolutely prove their theory, ...
There are NO proven theories. NONE. Whether we are talking about evolution or physics or whatever. This is a typical creatortionista strawman that mr_matrix has been corrected on, but still he denies the reality. Unfortunately for mr_matrix the world is unimpressed with his denials.
Ok! since i am ignorant of the facts why dont you enlighten me and give a list of the latest evolved species ...
There are many sources of this kind of information -- for those who are willing to LOOK for it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Observed Instances of Speciation
Speciation - Wikipedia
Notice that this next example is a question on a biology exam (and read the requirements for taking the test)
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/.../bio112/112cp/review1key.html
Discuss in detail one type of speciation. Provide one real example that illustrates that form of speciation event, and list up to two isolating mechanisms that are more likely to be involved in reproductively isolating the species (12 pts).
Logical conclusion: there have been many observed speciation events, and no amount of denial by mr-matrix or anyone else will change that fact.
I know that the website shows only the skull and not the entire skeleton. However, this is not intended to mislead, because we know that there are defferences in the skeleton but the article was focusing on the striking similarites in the shape of the skull.
(1) This is the logical fallacy of equivocation. mr_matrix had originally claimed in Message 21 that the thylacines were in fact wolves lock stock body and soul. He has backpedaled from that position to relying on just the similarity of the skull, BUT
(2) What I showed mr_matrix was that the skull was only similar from the one angle - from a different angle the SKULL is different in appearance, and the teeth are entirely different.
Logical conclusion: there is no relationship between true wolves and thylacines, thylacines filled a similar niche in the ecology of Australia and evolved SOME similarity in SOME features as a result, but the similarities are only superficial -- as predicted by convergent evolution of different species to fill similar niches.
Obviously, I never said that "helicopters are based on hummingbirds that have wings rotating on top of the body" ...
Message 25
The design of the helicopter is based on the design in the hummingbird's flight.
mr_matrix is now furiously backpedalling from the obviously absurd assertion he made in message 25 and trying to pretend he said something different ... and still gets it absolutely wrong.
Helicopters generate vertical air currnent, thats why they can fly upward right away without havind to move on land first like normal airplanes. The only horizontal current is when the already "vertical current" in the propellor is slanted towards the front so that the helicopter can fly forward . The hummingbird also relys on vertical air current and not on horizontal like other bird.
All wings generate lift from the curvature of the wing form and the passage of air (or water or any other suitable gas or liquid -- it's basic physics, not magic) because the air passing under the wing is slowed (bunched up by the cup of the wing) while the air over the top is sped up (stretched over the top of the wing) and this creates a pressure differential on the wing that "lifts" it relative to the air. In reality the helicopter is sucked into the air rather than pushed as mr_matrix would have it. Without movement of the wing relative to the air (or the air relative to the wing) there is no lift.
For mr_matrixes concept to work it would take more energy to fly the higher a helicopter flies and there would always be a blast of air on the ground and they would become more and more unstable the higher they flew (the taller the magic column of air becomes) -- none of these effects are observed for high flying helicopters.
Compare this to a hovercraft that DOES use a flow of air to push the craft off the ground: as soon as the skirt raises off the ground lifting force is lost and it is incapable of flying higher. If what mr_matrix said was true there would be no such flight limitation on hovercraft.
The flight of the hummingbird in generating lift from the movement of their wings through the air is no different than the flight of other birds in generating lift from the movement of their wings through the air.
... otherwise birds would never be able to fly if they were badly designed as you claim. But they failed becuase no human intellgence can design systems as marvelous as those in nature.
Two more logical fallacies from mr_matrix.
(1) Being badly designed does not mean unable to fly, just not as able to fly as well as possible with a better design: compare bats to birds as an example.
(2) When birds manage to design supersonic flight then I will believe they can match human understanding of the design parameters and physics of flight.
Obviously, this is a complete fallacy that ignores an important truth: airplanes conform aerodynamics because this is how they are desinged by humans and did not come about by chance, so if birds and insects conform aerodynamics as well and in even better ways than airplanes, then who designed them?
They were designed by mutation and natural selection -- mutation to cause variations in features, and natural selection to differentiate between the more successful and less successful variations. This is all that is necessary to make a workable system better. Generations of trial and error, a primitive mindless form of "computation" for solving problems, but effective in the long run.
Whether it is a gliding frog, a flying fish, a fly, a snake or a squirrel, the features in question are found to have some beneficial advantage for the ones that can do it a little better than the others -- they survive and pass on their genes to the next generation.
The vast multitude of similar but different mechanisms used for flight show a lack of design conformity at the beginning and a convergence of ability and mechanism as it evolves even though the structures remain different. An insect wing does not resemble a bird wing or a bat wing.
THe designer is God ...
The leap of faith with an absolute absence of evidence to substantiate it. It's another logical fallacy argument from incredulity and ignorance.
Denial of the mechanisms of evolution do not make them stop working no matter what you believe is the truth. Making a conclusion based on a rejection of evidence is not logic, it is fantasy, delusion based on faith.
One is free to believe what they want, the problem is not in what they believe but in what they deny in the process. The denial of evolution does not make it any less real, any less valid, and less active in the real world, it just make the person doing the denial a little smaller than they could be.
... that you and other athiests try to desperately ignore.
Of course the fact that I am not an atheist falls on deaf, arrogant, biased and bigoted ears eh? Is anyone who disagrees with mr_matrix's fantasies an atheist?
Just another in a long line of logical fallacies, erroneous assertion and intentional ignorance eh?
Certainly no new information.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by mr_matrix, posted 08-11-2006 2:10 PM mr_matrix has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Nighttrain, posted 08-16-2006 12:05 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1519 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 77 of 95 (340442)
08-16-2006 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Nighttrain
08-16-2006 12:05 AM


Re: mr_matrix STILL manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
Great line, Razd. Mind if I use it?
Not at all. This is (to me) the core issue for creationists to explain.
You can find evidence for practically any position you want to take (say a flat earth at the center of the universe, for example), so the issue is really what evidence against such a position needs to be denied to maintain that position.
The "younge earth" is a prime example of a position that requires massive denial of evidence from so many different fields.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Nighttrain, posted 08-16-2006 12:05 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024