|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Can you restore my editing privileges now, please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
Gee, what an unexpected thing for a bunch of atheistic scientists to say ... "no supernatural explanation needed". No kidding? we don't know what random fluctuations occurred instead of other possibilities but we have the general idea that there was no supernatural explanation needed So which "environmental pressures" produced a venonmous snake's hollow fangs, for example?Which "environmental pressures" produced said snake's venom glands? Which "environmental pressures" connected said snake's venom glands to said fangs? And said snake's venom just happened to paralyse its prey ... how lucky was that?! Otherwise those snakes would have all starved to death.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Tanypteryx writes:
Thank you for that fascinating information ... I didn't know parts of insects were made of plastic.
There's a plasticity to almost every insect morphological feature, mothparts, eyes, head shape, front legs, middle legs hind legs antennae, front wings, hind wings, genitalia, pheromones and chemical defenses, and on and on and on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPale3 writes:
As usual, I agree with you. The Beetles are my all-time favourite band. The Wasps, on the other hand, were pretty bloody ordinary.
Beetles is ok. Wasps is not ok. Pull a Dredge, ignore the wasp studies which I do not like and restore the title to the beetles. Just say no to wasps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
Reminds me of those liars who claim to have once served in the military ...
He claims that he used to be an atheist, but it's all a lie.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
I can't believe some atheists reject Santa Claus ... despite all the evidence. That is fair-dinkum WEIRD.
By the same logic they also reject and hate unicorns, leprechauns and mermaids.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
"BILLIONS of YEARS" per se is not a scientific explanation - it amounts to a pseudo-scientific superstition that Darwinists subscribe to that endows deep-time with magical creative powers. You have no idea how long evolution has been making it little changes, do you? BILLIONS of YEARS is a very, very long time. Give a forest enough time and it will produce a log-cabin. Bullshit.
start with a little groove on the inside of a tooth then some are born with deeper grooves that are favored in that current environment. they survive at a more frequent rate and eventually are the major variant.
How are those "deeper grooves ... favored in that current environment" and how do they allow the snake to "survive at a more frequent rate"?
then the deeper groove begins to fold together
Hilarious. What makes the deeper groove fold together? Magic?
and the saliva has also been changing ever so slightly to venomous in this surviving population.
What causes the saliva to become venomous? Magic?
some early venoms may have been self-destructive
Comedy gold!
others to weak to paralize a victim. some missed the teeth path and didn't work as they do today.
... and it was pure luck that some snakes were born with their venom glands connected to their hollow fangs!eventually some venom systems were just right. How old are you? Five?
the venomous fangs gave an advantage in the life encounters over food and real-time battles of life & death.
No kidding, Einstein?
this is abundantly obvious to me.
Laughter is the best medicine.
why isn't it obvious to you?what is blocking your brain from seeing this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Whatever. You've yet to demonstrate how the theory of UCD has proven useful in medicine.
Note: A possible explanation for why genetic similarities exist between humans and non-humans is not a medical use; it's just a story. A story about what might have happened millions of years ago never cured anyone, as far as I know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
How is any of that relevant to the discussion? How has the theory of UCD advanced medicine?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Irrelevant to the discussion, I should think. I not interested in your useless theorizing - I want to know how the theory of UCA has provided a practical medical advancement. The UCA does not specifically explain why a certain trait appears. What UCA does, Dredge, is give us the ability to understand HOW it happened. The same ingredients are necessary, and the understanding of how those ingredients work together starts with UCA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
I never said the billions of years wasn't a fact. I'm not a YEC; I'm an OEC.
IT IS FACT, you idiot. you are, like all humans, unable to visualize/grok the concept of billions of years. but we know it as a fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
[qs=each step in the evolution of the less-than-perfect human eye had its survival advantages.[/qs]
So goes the story, at least. According to Darwinist theory, every part of every living thing is the result of survival advantages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
How did venomous snakes get hollow-fangs?
they could provide additional structural strength, making it easier to puncture the increasingly tougher skins of their prey.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
That's right ... I can't correct any editing mistakes bcoz, unlike every other poster here, I don"t have any editing privileges. A gross miscarriage of justice, to be sure.
You can repair that by replacing the equal sign (=) with a right square bracket (]). Oh yeah, you can't, can you? Because you've lost your editing privileges. Because you had abused that privilege so egregiously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 104 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
A single mutation won't produce the gland that produces snake venom ... in fact, a single mutation would produce only a tiny fraction of the gland, which would be useless since it wouldn't produce any venom at all. Yes...the "magic" of BILLIONS of generations with tiny flaws in reproducing an exact copy of their DNA. Most flaws are probably neutral, many are disadvantageous, and a few are advantageous. So how would this useless tiny fraction of said gland confer a survival advantage to the snake?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024