|
Author
|
Topic: The Light Time Problem
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 6129 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 6.3
|
|
Message 61 of 278 (893682)
04-18-2022 11:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by Candle3
04-18-2022 9:39 AM
|
|
I ask that you shorten your posts and
make one or two points at a time. I have been making one or two points per message. Unfortunately, you are forcing those single points to be the same one: Answer the damned question! I have to post the same question over and over again. Your stated goal ([mid=893610)]) is to dismiss and ignore the questions. That is 100% unsat! Just answer the damned questions directly and honestly (while that is out of character for you, your finally coming out as possibly human is a good start) and I will not have to repeat them so much. But you need to realize that you are causing those long responses from everybody, not just me. If you do not want long replies, then stop posting Gish Gallops. It's really that simple. The response to a single-sentence creationist claim requires at least a paragraph. You post claim and we need to reply with a paragraph. All you do is regurgitate a false claim and we have to point out that it is false and explain why it is false, though sometimes we have to try to figure out what the hell you are talking about (which is made so much more difficult by your refusal to answer our questions). Of course, not knowing how much you understand requires us to explain everything to you. If we knew that you do understand something, then we won't need to explain it to you, right? But if you instead repeatedly that you still don't understand something, then we have to keep explaining it to you, right? And your persistent posting of the same old false claims announce very loudly to us that you have learned nothing, so we are required you explain everything to you yet again! If you want to stop our responses to your stupid crap, simply stop with the stupid crap. Or do I need to explain the whole thing to you again? And again? And again? Is it starting to make sense to you? Now, the Gish Gallop was Dr. Duane Gish's signature move. Since a few seconds of false creationist lie requires a response of several minutes, Gish would gallop through about a dozen false claims in a minute or so, to which his opponent needed an hour or two to respond to. But that happened in a creationist debate with very strict time limits, so Gish's opponent had only five minutes at most to respond. Then Gish would go out and boast "That evolutionist didn't have any answers to my long list of questions!", that dishonest sack of shit. This is the first time that I am addressing your posts as a Gish Gallop, but others here have already done so. Almost every single one of your posts includes a Gish Gallop of false claims, so that you then have the gall to complain about our "long" replies is particularly galling. And hypocritical. If you want us to restrict ourselves to single points, then restrict yourself to a single point per message! It's that simple. And when we ask you a question, answer it! That's a difference between us. Creationists ask questions as a form of attack, usually marked by throwing "unanswerable questions" at us (ie, ones that are difficult, require much expertise, are intended to chase away the opposition, etc). Normals ask questions in order to gather information or to further discussion, whereas creationists ask questions in order to kill discussion. You are among normals, so please try to conduct yourself as a normal. When a question is asked, answer it. But if you continue to conduct yourself as mindless beast, then you will be treated accordingly. Your choice.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by Candle3, posted 04-18-2022 9:39 AM | | Candle3 has not replied |
|
Tanypteryx
Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: 08-27-2006
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 62 of 278 (893683)
04-18-2022 11:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by Candle3
04-18-2022 9:39 AM
|
|
In addition, I would like to see the theory
of evolution stop being taught as fact, when
It takes much more faith to believe in
evolution than it does in creation. Well, you might be right that it would take more faith to believe in evolution, except for one thing, evidence. When we say we have libraries and museums full of evidence we are not just making it up. They really exist, you can look at the evidence yourself and read what has been found. Scientist in dozens of fields discover and report what they find, and you can read it. You can hold it in your hands. You can study it. One interesting thing (at least to me) is that as you study this field you you suddenly see how discoveries are connected and this happens over and over.
Scientists do not know one percent of all there is to know about the universe and everything contained in it. In other words, We are extremely primitive. Don't pretend otherwise. I don't think we can quantify what we don't know, but yep, every time we discover something it makes us realize that there is a lot left to learn. Science is a systematic way to study things and learn about the Universe. Science and scientist don't claim we know everything, but we are trying to study and learn about everything. You seem to be saying that since we don't know everything, we don't know anything, or that we should not be honest and tell you what we have learned so far. We have a lot to learn still, but we have learned a lot about biology and how it works and how life evolves.
First of all, I do have cataracts, and
the left eye is scheduled to be operated
on a week from today. The right eye is
Two week from the left. My wife had cataract surgery in October, She started out thinking she would get the most expensive lenses, but found that lots of people had problems with halos, especially at night. There were problems with the next less expensive ones also. She ended up getting the basic lenses that have a long track record of working well. She has to use glasses for reading or close work, but she is happy with her results so far.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonOne important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by Candle3, posted 04-18-2022 9:39 AM | | Candle3 has not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 6129 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 6.3
|
|
|
Message 63 of 278 (893689)
04-18-2022 12:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by Candle3
04-18-2022 9:39 AM
|
|
Also, I am not asking that creationism
Be taught in school. You just told us that you're an old guy, but that still doesn't tell us how long you have been involved with "creation science". Back in 1981, Arkansas passed a new law, Arkansas Act 590 of 1981, entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation Science and Evolution Science Act," which mandated that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution. That led to the well known trial, McLean v. Arkansas, which found that "creation science" was religious in nature. That decision was based on text in the law which defined "creation science", so the Louisiana law removed that part from respiratory therapist Paul Ellwanger's model bill that both laws were based on. The lawsuit against the Louisiana law became a US Supreme Court decision, Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), that exposed the "creation science" deception on a national level and led to creationists adopting "intelligent design" in order to hide the creationism. Did you live through those developments? When you read the text of Arkansas Act 590 (1981) as I have done, you will see that its purpose is not to have creationism taught, but rather to force the schools to stop teaching evolution by requiring equal time for creationism whenever evolution is taught. So they were relying on the threat of creationism being taught, which demonstrates that creationists themselves know how horrible creationism is. Interesting. And one of the many smoking guns in the Arkansas trial was a letter submitted as evidence (and cited in Overton's decision, which I've also read) from journalist Tom Bethell and Paul Ellwanger (author of the model bill):
quote:
"... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already."
So the purpose of it all is to kill evolution. The question is "Why?" Why do you hate evolution so much? Not as if we ever see creationists actually talking about evolution, but instead all kinds of nonsense that have nothing to do with evolution.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by Candle3, posted 04-18-2022 9:39 AM | | Candle3 has not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 6129 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 6.3
|
|
|
Message 64 of 278 (893703)
04-18-2022 4:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by Candle3
04-18-2022 9:39 AM
|
|
In addition, I would like to see the theory
of evolution stop being taught as fact, ... It shouldn't be, because the theory of evolution is different from the fact of evolution. Which one can clearly see when one knows what facts and theories are -- something which seems to always escape creationists causing them to make such stupid statements. Most basically, facts are what happens; theories explain how they happen. The fact(s) of evolution are descent with modification and the formation of new species. The theor(y/ies) of evolution explain how evolution works. One creationist strategy to disprove the fact of evolution is by attacking aspects of the theory of evolution. That strategy is invalid and doomed to failure, since just because our explanations of something are wrong doesn't keep that something from still existing and still working -- "Reality doesn't care what we think or believe." When we thought that there were two different kinds of electricity, that didn't stop lightening from striking ... any more than finally realizing that neither Zeus nor Thor nor a petulant יהוה (as in "The Finger of God") was the cause of lightening ever caused it to stop striking. The only goal of such an approach would be to deceive the public. The purpose of science education is to teach students the current ideas in science in order for them to understand those ideas. Evolution is one of those current ideas in science (indeed, it's considered the cornerstone of biology) and therefore should be taught. Unlike religious indoctrination, education does not require the student to believe in the subject matter (eg, the USAF would teach its NCOs about socialism and communism ("know your enemy") but obviously the intention of that education was never to turn us into Commies). Should creationist kids be taught evolution? Yes, most definitely and parents who want their children to grow up fighting against evolution should demand that they be taught evolution! Only be learning what evolution actually is can those children ever stand a chance of succeeding against evolution (yet again, "know your enemy and know yourself"). If instead all they ever learn is creationist disinformation, then it would be like sending your army into battle with blanks; as a former creationist wrote:
quote:
"I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed."
Is that kind of devastating failure and defeat what you would want for your kids? That's what you're setting them up for when you keep them from learning what evolution actually is.
... , when
It takes much more faith to believe in
evolution than it does in creation. It takes no more faith to accept and understand evolution than to accept and understand gravity, aerodynamics, osmosis, electricity, computer logic, or the four-cycle internal combustion engine. These are all natural phenomena which are observable or are based on phenomena which are observable, measurable, testable, etc. With an abundance of evicence, faith is not necessary.
Creation, OTOH, is based on the supernatural, which is not in the least bit observable, measurable, testable, nor can its very existence ever be determined. With a total lack of evidence, faith is all you have to go on. Therefore, faith is not in the least necessary to accept evolution, but it is completely and utterly crucial for accepting creation. Your problem is that you have no clue what evolution is, let alone how it works. That is because creationist lies have grossly misinformed and even malinformed you about evolution. Those creationist lies have you believing bizarre things about evolution that defy all logic and reality itself. Those creationist lies create strawman caricatures labeled as "evolution" but which bear no resemblance to actual evolution and which creationists can make a big show of destroying (which is exactly why strawmen were created in the first place). So the current question for you is: What do you think evolution is? And why do you hate it so much? Clearly, there is no inherent conflict between evolution and Divine Creation, yet you seem to believe that there is. Why would you believe such a thing? Edited by dwise1, : "you're setting up your kids for failure" & "why do you hate evolution so much?"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by Candle3, posted 04-18-2022 9:39 AM | | Candle3 has not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 6129 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 6.3
|
|
|
Message 65 of 278 (893705)
04-18-2022 4:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 59 by Candle3
04-18-2022 9:39 AM
|
|
First of all, I do have cataracts, and
the left eye is scheduled to be operated
on a week from today. The right eye is
Two week from the left. OK, I'm a retired Navy Chief and I worked for my father, a general contractor, for 8 years in high school and college, plus I studied the Seabee 1&C course. That means that I am familiar with planning (which factors in lead time and down time). Your two surgeries should put you out of action for about four weeks. Tied into that will be getting fitted for reading glasses, which probably shouldn't start until your left eye has recovered sufficiently. That should make it under two months before you can rejoin us, starting a week from now. I would hope that you would at least extend us the common courtesy of keeping us informed of your progress.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 59 by Candle3, posted 04-18-2022 9:39 AM | | Candle3 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 66 by Candle3, posted 04-19-2022 5:30 PM | | dwise1 has replied |
|
Candle3
Member Posts: 899 Joined: 12-31-2018
|
|
|
Message 66 of 278 (893772)
04-19-2022 5:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 65 by dwise1
04-18-2022 4:44 PM
|
|
I am still waiting for proof of evolution. Do you have this proof on film? Anyone can claim something as fact, but it is something else to prove their lies. I want to see your empirical evidence. In fact, I demand to see it. My empirical evidence is being produced everyday. I take great pride in the fact (and it is indeed a fact) that human mother's produce human babies, and that oak trees produce oak trees. Etc... Based on God's word in Genesis, this is exactly what an intelligent and reasonable person would expect to see. In fact, I boldly predict with 100% certainly that next week; next month; next year; and next century (if we are still going) that human mother's will still be producing human babies. If you doubt that what I am saying is true, then call me on it. I'll give you ten to one odds. Are you aware that diamonds can be created in the lab in just a couple of months? There is no need to waitillions of years. Oil can be produced in minutes with a little algae and water. Again, no need to wait millions of years for a can of it. Listen, I am not telling you that I can prove God exists. You, on the other hand, say with great conviction, that evolution is a fact. It is not up to me to disprove your assertion. On the contrary, it is up to you to prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt. Why do evolutionists ignore the best proved law of physics--law of increasing entropy. The second Law of Thermodynamics applies not only in physical and chemistry, but in biological and geological. They all lose order. Evolutionary systems are expected to increase in order and complexity. However, no exception to the 2nd Law has ever been found. Are you aware that over 3,000,000,000 sets (Pairs) of genetic letters make up the human genome? Or that each human has more than 10 billion miles of DNA? I want to see your proof--you do have it, don't you? You sure talk like you do. Not one person who has ever lived, except you--has been an eye witness to macro- evolution. Evolution zealots say that vestigial structure are proof that evolution is true. What a crock. why would evolutionary processes have created these structures in the first place if they were not needed? I stopped posting on this site several years back because of my eyes. I did not know it at that time but I had Cataracts. Only recently did I find this out. Also, I get ocular migranes, which are not painful, but the wavy, flashing patterns are quite bothersome. But, don,t feel bad for me. I just turned 69, but I lift weights; ride a mountain bike; and, do 30 minutes of fast aerobic dancing every morning. I don't smoke, drink, or take drugs. I have really Good health except for my eyes. In any event, I know that you are an honest man, who will provide the proof of evolution.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by dwise1, posted 04-18-2022 4:44 PM | | dwise1 has replied |
|
Tanypteryx
Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: 08-27-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 67 of 278 (893773)
04-19-2022 6:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Candle3
04-19-2022 5:30 PM
|
|
I know dwise will provide a more detailed response, but I just have a couple comments and questions. Here is your basic problem candle, the theory of evolution agrees with what you just wrote.
candle2 writes: My empirical evidence is being produced everyday. I take great pride in the fact (and it is indeed a fact) that human mother's produce human babies, and that oak trees produce oak trees. Etc... In fact, I boldly predict with 100% certainly that next week; next month; next year; and next century (if we are still going) that human mother's will still be producing human babies. You're have a big old fight and blustering about something that the theory of evolution does not say! You may think it says something different, but you are wrong. Can you show us a single scientific source that says that the theory of evolution says the opposite of what you said in those 2 paragraphs? You are making big claims, let's see your evidence. I don't see what relevance the rest of post has on the subject so I will leave that to dwise and the others.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonOne important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by Candle3, posted 04-19-2022 5:30 PM | | Candle3 has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10350 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 6.3
|
|
|
Message 68 of 278 (893777)
04-19-2022 6:51 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Candle3
04-19-2022 5:30 PM
|
|
candle2 writes: My empirical evidence is being produced everyday. I take great pride in the fact (and it is indeed a fact) that human mother's produce human babies, and that oak trees produce oak trees. Etc... Based on God's word in Genesis, this is exactly what an intelligent and reasonable person would expect to see. In fact, I boldly predict with 100% certainly that next week; next month; next year; and next century (if we are still going) that human mother's will still be producing human babies. The theory of evolution also states that the descendants of humans will always be humans. We share an ape ancestor with other apes, and all apes have always had ape babies. We share a mammal ancestor with other mammals, and mammals have always given birth to mammals. We share a vertebrate ancestor with other vertebrates, and vertebrates have always produced vertebrates. Humans are apes, mammals, and vertebrates. Our ancestors will always be those things.
Are you aware that diamonds can be created in the lab in just a couple of months? There is no need to waitillions of years. Oil can be produced in minutes with a little algae and water. Again, no need to wait millions of years for a can of it. Are you saying the Earth is only minutes to months old? If not, how is this relevant? If you want to actually disprove the methods used to date the Earth, then show us a zircon that builds up large quantities of lead from the decay of uranium over a span of a few months. We will also need to see secular equilibrium between the intermediate decay products.
Why do evolutionists ignore the best proved law of physics--law of increasing entropy. The second Law of Thermodynamics applies not only in physical and chemistry, but in biological and geological. They all lose order. Evolutionary systems are expected to increase in order and complexity. However, no exception to the 2nd Law has ever been found. If entropy could never decrease then refrigerators wouldn't work. Refrigerators do work. Perhaps you need to learn what the 2nd law actually says. The 2nd law allows for local decreases in entropy if energy is put into the system. This is why a temperature gradient can form (i.e. decrease in entropy) across the walls of a refrigerator when you pump energy into the refrigerator. In the very same way, that massive fireball pumping energy into Earth's system allows for entropy to decrease on the Earth.
Are you aware that over 3,000,000,000 sets (Pairs) of genetic letters make up the human genome? Or that each human has more than 10 billion miles of DNA? I want to see your proof--you do have it, don't you? You sure talk like you do. Yes, I have the evidence. One piece of that evidence is the pattern of substitution mutations that separate different species. That pattern is exactly what we would expect to see from common ancestry and the observed natural process that produce mutations. Human Genetics Confirms Mutations as the Drivers of Diversity and Evolution – EvoGrad That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Evolution zealots say that vestigial structure
are proof that evolution is true. What a crock.
why would evolutionary processes have created
these structures in the first place if they were
not needed? They were needed when they first evolved. They become rudimentary once they are no longer needed. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by Candle3, posted 04-19-2022 5:30 PM | | Candle3 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by jar, posted 04-19-2022 7:17 PM | | Taq has not replied | | | Message 75 by Candle3, posted 04-20-2022 3:46 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 138 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 69 of 278 (893778)
04-19-2022 7:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
04-19-2022 6:51 PM
|
|
Taq writes: Evolution zealots say that vestigial structure
are proof that evolution is true. What a crock.
why would evolutionary processes have created
these structures in the first place if they were
not needed? They were needed when they first evolved. They become rudimentary once they are no longer needed. Plus, errors happen. If the errors are not so serious that they keep the critter from living long enough to reproduce, then it's likely that the error will get passed on to future generations. Evolution does not work by creating changes that are needed rather it works by keeping those changes that just happen to give the critter an advantage and not passing on those changes that would be too harmful.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by Taq, posted 04-19-2022 6:51 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 6129 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 6.3
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 70 of 278 (893785)
04-20-2022 12:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Candle3
04-19-2022 5:30 PM
|
|
What Evolution Does Teach
You utterly stupid fucking idiot! We have explained it to you over and over and over again and you have deliberately refused to learn the truth. We know that you are aware of our need to repeatedly try to get through to you because you have complained about it. Well, asshole, I'm posting that yet again at the end of this message. But first I'll present the basic facts of what evolution does actually say. Instead of the stupid creationist bullshit lies about evolution that you keep regurgitating mindlessly (your only operating mode, apparently), THIS IS WHAT EVOLUTION ACTUALLY SAYS:
- EVOLUTION says that humans always give birth to humans according to their ethnic heritage.
- EVOLUTION says that chimps always give birth to chimps.
- EVOLUTION says that pigs always give birth to pigs.
- EVOLUTION says that dogs always give birth to dogs according to their species and breed.
- EVOLUTION says that cats always give birth to cats according to their species and breed.
- EVOLUTION says that alligators always hatch alligators according to their species.
- EVOLUTION says that birds always hatch birds according to their species.
- And so on and so on and so on, without fail.
What is wrong with you that you refuse to understand those simple facts? Is it because your head is so firmly wedged so deeply up your ass? Please pull your head out and at least try to learn something.
So here it is yet again, this time from Message 1, the last time I had to repeat the same thing yet again. This time pull your head out of your ass and read it, you utterly stupid fucking idiot. dwise1 writes: So here it is yet again, but this time with the ASCII art diagrams left out so that you cannot again use your stupid lame excuse for committing deliberate ignorance:
dwise1 writes: It is observable science (since recorded history) that
an animal will have offsprings of the same kind. The
same goes for humans. Human mothers will always
have human babies.
Yes, that is exactly what science says, because that is how life operating in reality does work. That is also why evolution, which is based on how life operates in reality, says the same thing! You seem to be trying to misrepresent evolution as saying something entirely different. What false words are you trying to put into evolution's mouth? Please be as specific as you can be. That would include your explanation of why you are coming to the false conclusions that you appear to be pretending to reach.
Professors cannot give an observable example where
one animal evolved (macro) into an entirely different
kind of animal. Of course, because that is not how life works. Nor is that what evolution teaches! Why are you misrepresenting what evolution teaches? Because if you told the truth then your anti-evolution position would fall apart? So you end up having to support your position with no other way than one falsehood after another. I know that you have been told the term, "nested hierarchies", but apparently you do not understand what that means. It's also called "clades" or monophyly -- the graphics there are much better than I could create via ASCII art. Basically, offspring will always be in the same clade as their parents, what in your muddled terminology caricature would be a "kind" (BTW, "Kind" is the German word for "child", as in Kindergarten). They will never ever jump into a different clade. Yes, closely related clades may be able to still interbreed with varying degrees of success, but only if they are in the same next-higher clade. Remember that a child will be very highly similar to its parents, yet slightly different. Over many generations, those differences between the n-th kid and the ancestor n generations ago will accumulate. Isolated populations of a species can, through the lack of remixing into a common gene pool, become noticeably different from each other, thus having become two different species. Both new species can go on to form newer species, but all of them will still be a part of that original clade. You will complain that that is only micro-evolution, but that is also how macro works. Except you do not understand macro, but rather you undoubtedly have a massive wrong idea about it. And also apparently about how speciation happens, which does not happen in a single generation (as your "argument" implies) but rather over many generations. Dr. Eugenie Scott recently gave a presentation: "What People Get Wrong--And Sometimes Right--About Evolution." I have posted it in Message 111 preceded by a message in which I presented my notes on it just immediately before finally finding the video. Part of creationists' misunderstanding of evolution is that they are caught in the millennia-old idea of The Great Chain of Being, AKA "The Ladder of Life", in which species progress up the chain (or ladder) from more primitive to more advanced until they reach our position at the top. Thus, according to that absolutely wrong model, evolving involves jumping up the chain (or ladder) to become something completely different. Absolutely wrong and that's why you don't understand anything. We have so often seen that kind of misunderstanding leading to creationist "proofs against evolution" by pointing out that we do not see dogs giving birth to kittens. Absolute rubbish that only a creationist would be ignorant enough to say. Rather, Darwin's idea was a branching tree or bush, which is the right idea. An ancestral species splits into two or more daughter species which then go on to branch out even further. Every single branching is still on the same earlier branch, there's no jumping over to another branch like you would jump from one link in a chain (or rung on a ladder) to another. No dogs giving birth to kittens is possible, yet it can lead to dogs being ancestral to later species of "doggish" (definitely related to dogs, yet different).
. . . In essence, that is how nested hierarchies work. Descendant species are in the same clades as their ancestors, but not those of their cousins. So, dogs and cats are in two very different clades, so dogs cannot have kittens. However, they, along with bears, are in a same clade because they all share a common ancestor, a carnivore. That carnivorous ancestor was also placental (carrying its fetus longer thanks to having a placenta as opposed to what marsupials need to do). Not only that, but it was also ( ... wait for it, wait for it ... ) a mammal! Going further back through the cladistic levels, it was also an amniota (egg bearing), and a tetrapod (basic body plan including four limbs), and a chordate (AKA vertebrate), as well as being a member of Animalia. I'm sure you've been fed that BS argument against Peppered Moths: "BUT THEY'RE STILL MOTHS!" Are you starting to see the error in that non-argument? Of course they're still moths! And even though speciation did not occur in that study, when they do eventually speciate their daughter species will still be moths, just a different kind of moth! Please learn something about evolution so that you can oppose it with truthful arguments that actually address actual problems with it, not with false claims based on abject ignorance. You've been trying ignorance for about a century now and it still does not work! You might consider trying a different approach, like actually learning what evolution actually is. You keep lying about that too; eg in your recent Message 43. We've explained it to you so many times that you have no excuse for your ignorance. What is it about your religion and your god that requires you to go to extremes to maintain your ignorance and to avoid learning anything? Edited by dwise1, : Removed the size tag so that candle2 can't complain about that too
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by Candle3, posted 04-19-2022 5:30 PM | | Candle3 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 71 by AZPaul3, posted 04-20-2022 1:55 AM | | dwise1 has replied |
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8685 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006 Member Rating: 6.1
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 71 of 278 (893787)
04-20-2022 1:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by dwise1
04-20-2022 12:21 AM
|
|
Re: What Evolution Does Teach
Oh the frustration! I hope it felt good because it sure looked good! Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2022 12:21 AM | | dwise1 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 72 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2022 10:51 AM | | AZPaul3 has not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 6129 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 6.3
|
|
|
Message 72 of 278 (893790)
04-20-2022 10:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 71 by AZPaul3
04-20-2022 1:55 AM
|
|
Re: What Evolution Does Teach
He ignores everything we try to explain to him, so I gave him something that he cannot ignore. But we both know that he'll ignore it anyway. Because his brain is almost completely rotted out by all the lies that his faith depends on. Which means that his religion, being wicked (because it produces wicked fruit) needs to be cut down and thrown into the fire as per the Matthew 7:20 Test ("by their fruits you will know them!"). He demands that we show him all the empirical evidence for evolution, but we know full well that he will refuse to even look at it. He will instead dismiss and ignore it and will even complain mightily that our listing of all the evidence for evolution is too long and whine that he cannot read it on his tiny unreadable phone. The hypocrite! A few years ago I started to work out a psychological profile for creationists. Basically, all their claims are based on lies, but as mindless sheeple followers couched away in their covens bubble of circle jerks within circle jerks they never get exposed to reality and the truth -- that seems to be about the mental level that wickless candle is stuck at. But then they start to sally forth to do battle with their fake bogeyman that they grossly misname, "Evolution" (AKA "Evilution", which has nothing whatsoever to do with actual evolution). Like the mob members in the Boxer Rebellion ("55 Days in Peking") who were given magical shirts that would protect them from the "foreign devils'" bullets, they learn the hard way the bitter truth about their creationist lies, mainly that they're not as bullet-proof as they had been brainwashed to think. Most of them return to the comfort of their circle jerks within circle jerks, but some keep trying to fight back. And they have to deal with the simple fact that anyone who is the least bit knowledgeable will shoot them down in flames. So they have to be dishonest and they became more and more dishonest the more that they butt their heads against the truth of reality. One interesting observation I've made is that young-earth creationist activists will twist themselves into 3-D projections of 4-D pretzels (like hypercubes) in order to avoid discussing any YEC claims. I was engaged in a 20-year correspondence with one YEC who proclaims himself to be a YEC, but in all that time he not only never once made any YEC claim but refused to do so despite my repeated requests that we discuss some. They know full well that their claims are nothing but crap. So the higher creationists progress, the more dishonest they become because gross dishonesty is the only thing they have going for them. It would be nice and constructive to be able to discuss these things with creationists, but they absolutely refuse to. We cannot even get a creationist to tell us what he thinks evolution is, how he thinks that it works, and why he thinks that he has to fight against evolution. So all we are left with is constructing models of creationist psychology based entirely on observation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by AZPaul3, posted 04-20-2022 1:55 AM | | AZPaul3 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 73 by jar, posted 04-20-2022 11:02 AM | | dwise1 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 138 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 73 of 278 (893791)
04-20-2022 11:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by dwise1
04-20-2022 10:51 AM
|
|
Re: What Evolution Does Teach
Remember that it is NOT just evolution. They are willfully clueless about Christianity, about how Bibles were created, about what Jesus is quoted as telling folk to do and not do and even about who is supposed to be saying stuff in the stories. All of Evangelical Conservative Christianity is a mansion built not just on sand but un-compacted soil, a mansion which must collapse if ever touched by honesty, reality or reason. This is why they have created their own Avoidance System designed to prevent any contact with any breathe of clean air which will collapse the mansion. It is the Christian Cult of Ignorance a Deceit.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2022 10:51 AM | | dwise1 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 81 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2022 6:00 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 711 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 74 of 278 (893807)
04-20-2022 3:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by Candle3
04-19-2022 5:30 PM
|
|
candle2 writes: Why do evolutionists ignore the best proved law of physics--law of increasing entropy. The second Law of Thermodynamics applies not only in physical and chemistry, but in biological and geological. They all lose order. Evolutionary systems are expected to increase in order and complexity. However, no exception to the 2nd Law has ever been found.
Page one of the thermodynamics textbook:
thermo = heat
dynamics = movement Thermodynamics is about the movement of heat. You're confused in thinking that the arrangement of "stuff" is relevant. Thermodynamics is not about the organization of stuff. It's about the organization of heat. Thermodynamics does not say that stuff can not become more organized. Thermodynamics says that heat spreads out. A good example of the second law is a cup of hot coffee sitting on the table. Put your hand above it. You can feel the heat moving. Eventually, the heat will spread out to fill the whole room. If you had a sensitive enough thermometer, you could measure the rise in temperature of the room. Now look at a chemical reaction:
2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H2 Water is certainly more orderly than hydrogen or oxygen, so simple observation shows that your idea of thermodynamics is wrong. And guess what. That reaction produces large quantities of heat (hint: the Hindenburg). That means that the water is more stable than the hydrogen and oxygen. The Second Law means that a system will inevitably move toward a more stable configuration - even if it makes the stuff more orderly. Why don't creationists understand that? Why do they tell you nonsense about thermodynamics?
"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by Candle3, posted 04-19-2022 5:30 PM | | Candle3 has replied |
|
Candle3
Member Posts: 899 Joined: 12-31-2018
|
|
|
Message 75 of 278 (893808)
04-20-2022 3:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 68 by Taq
04-19-2022 6:51 PM
|
|
Evolutionists cannot prove that dinosaurs died out 75,000,000 years ago. And creationists cannot prove that dinosaurs coexisted with man, but the preponderance of the evidence greatly favors creationists. The sheer number of names given to dragons and dinosaurs worldwide is quite impressive. All countries have their dragon myths. Proofs of dinosaurs are found on sculptures. bas reliefs, pictographs, carvings, drawings, paintings, petrographs, mosaics, tapestries, etc. Ancient historians described dragons as real, living creatures. They listed them with their descriptions of other creatures that we are more familiar with. These historians would not have been able to describe the dinosaurs so precisely if they had not, in fact, encountered them. It is impossible to think otherwise. This would be similar to someone who lived 4000 years ago describing a modern car, with air-conditioning and stereo. Evolutionists deny these encounters, and all the evidence of them because to accept even one would end their fairytale. And, they would be right. If just one dinosaur is shown to have existed alongside man their straw house would fall down. Marco Polo in 'The Travels of Marco Polo," Part 2, chapter 40, describes a Chinese dragon. The dragon was 30 feet or so long. It had two short front legs, with 3 claws. It had large menacing eyes. It had jaws wide enough to swallow a man. His mouth was filled with large sharp teeth. The dragons would bed up during the day. In the cool of the evening they would go down to a watering hole, dragging their tales behind them. Villagers would drive long, sharp iron nails through a heavy wooden beam and cover the beam with sand. The dragon (t-rex) would step on the nails and become trapped. The villagers would then kill them. Recently, my eight year old grandson watched one of the Jurrasic Park movies. I asked him to describe the t-rex to me. He described it almost verbatim as Marco Polo. Job 40:15-24 describes the behemoth; a giant reptile with bones like tube of brass: limbs like bars of iron; and, He moves his tail like a cedar tree. Evolutionists try to tell us that God is describing an elephant, or perhaps a hippo. Are these people blind, seriously? The tails of both elephants and hips are really small. The tail described is more like the tail on a sauropod.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 68 by Taq, posted 04-19-2022 6:51 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2