Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 526 of 687 (524445)
09-16-2009 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by ICANT
09-16-2009 12:16 PM


What Is Your Point? What Is Your Model?
ICANT what is your point here?
Are you denying that a clock at the top of a mountain will progress at a faster rate than a clock at the bottom due to the gravitational effects of General relativity? You do know this has been observed, measured, even incredibly accurately predicted by GR?
Are you denying that the speed of light is constant whatever "relative" speed you may be travelling at (as per Mod's point). The principle that lies at the heart of everything you are objecting against.
Everything else was just responses to the smoke screen that was put up concerning this question.
Oh so the whole of modern cosmology is a "smokescreen". Devised to bemuse and baffle the rest of us away from the truths that YOU, apparently, know.
Despite the evidence, despite the incredibly accurate and detailed predictions it is all wrong and you, ICANT who doesn't even understand why an orbitting body is undergoing an acceleration, have seen through this cosmological witchdoctory to reveal the truth to us lesser mortals.
ICANT what exactly is your point here? Let's for the sake of fantasy assume that you have successfully rebutted Cavediver and everyone else into submission. What is it you have demonstrated?
This thread is called "ICANTS Position in the Creation Debate" so assuming all your arguments against current cosmological models are superior and flawless what exactly is the model you would like us to replace our current theories with? Be explicit.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2009 12:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 1:41 AM Straggler has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 527 of 687 (524469)
09-16-2009 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by ICANT
09-16-2009 12:16 PM


Re: Re Light
Not in agreement yet.
Lets speed up that other 0.1% so we are traveling at the speed of light
Let's not since travelling at the speed of light is not the case I am asking you about.
In the example I gave, what do you think we would measure the speed of light travelling away from us at?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2009 12:16 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by Izanagi, posted 09-17-2009 11:31 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 535 by ICANT, posted 09-17-2009 11:59 PM Modulous has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 528 of 687 (524477)
09-16-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 521 by ICANT
09-16-2009 11:18 AM


Re: Re:Life
ICANT writes:
Evolution has to have life existing to be able to evolve. If the God of Genesis created life as He says then evolution can not be true. Mankind was created as full grown adults Gen 2:7. Trees were made to grow out of the ground. Gen 2:9 Man was told he could eat fruit from all the trees but one. Gen 2:16, 17. Full grown creatures were formed from the ground. Gen 2:19. The first man named all these creatures. Gen 2:29 Creation by God and evolution are not compatable. You can't mix them.
Ok then, for you, it really comes down to whether or not the story in Genesis is true. Then I have a few questions for you:
1) It said that God created Adam and Eve, the first people. They ate the apple and were cast out of Eden. After, we go directly into the story of Cain and Abel. When Cain goes into the land of Nod, where did his wife come from? Keeping in mind that Genesis 5 is the book of the generations of Adam, besides Cain, Abel, and Seth in Genesis 4, there is no mention of anyone else being born to Adam and Eve until after Seth. And if others were born prior to Seth, why were they not mentioned in Genesis 5, which says that Adam begat many sons and daughters after Seth was born, but says nothing about people born before Seth.
B) In the flood story, eight people survived the flood. My question is how eight people could have repopulated the Earth, ignoring the fact that a population that low would be quite inbred. Keep in mind that the starting population of eight would have had to breed enough people to account for all the cultures in the world. As a corollary, why is it that every other culture in the world are ignorant about God. Why is it that, if everyone is descended from Noah and Noah and his family witnessed the power of God, there are no references to the Judeo-Christian God in any other cultures? If all humanity is descended from Noah and his family and they are followers of a monotheistic God, why are there so many polytheistic religions with gods like Zeus, Odin, Izanagi, Purusha, Hurakan, etc. Why is it that the Hebrews were allowed knowledge of God but no others? Keep in mind that the Bible states belief in God is required for salvation, it seems incredible elitist to deny salvation to the world by allowing worship of other gods except for a select group of people. After all, what makes the Hebrews so special that they are allowed to keep knowledge of God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2009 11:18 AM ICANT has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 529 of 687 (524480)
09-17-2009 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 518 by ICANT
09-16-2009 10:24 AM


Re: Time changes
ICANT writes:
greyseal writes:
er, nooooo...I'm saying that the ones in space have to be adjusted for time dilation, for really realz.
Are you saying then that time dilation is a fancy way of saying the effects of gravity and velocity cause the clocks at height to run slower than those closer to the source of gravity?
it's not "height", and they're not technically running slower, but...yes.
Stay with me, I'll go through it slowly (and hope I get it right):
gravity is acceleration (you'll have to take my word for this, but you're being accelerated towards the earth at a pull of 1G right now, for instance). Gravity is a sort of velocity change (therefore, relative motion).
Both relative motion and therefore acceleration (which is a change in relative motion) will throw off two clocks in differing frames of reference.
The clocks in space are not moving relative to the surface of the Earth, but AND they ARE in a weaker gravitational field and they ARE moving really quick.
The clocks in the planes could fly as low as they chose (practical limits aside) BUT they were also moving relative to the "stationary" clock on the ground.
Both situations offer differing frames of reference when comparing two clocks with each other.
Since our need with GPS is to be accurate in a frame of reference placed squarely on the ground, and our clocks are in a different frame of reference, we need to take time dilation into account - if we didn't, relativity would be wrong. We do, so something's up - and the equations given to us by Einstein work remarkably well for being a shot in the dark, no?
Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.
Edited by greyseal, : (small) modification!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 518 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2009 10:24 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by JonF, posted 09-17-2009 8:24 AM greyseal has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 530 of 687 (524505)
09-17-2009 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 529 by greyseal
09-17-2009 2:39 AM


Re: Time changes
The clocks in space are not moving relative to the surface of the Earth, but they ARE in a weaker gravitational field and they ARE moving really quick
The clocks on the GPS satellites are moving relative to the Earth's surface, quite significantly. No GPS satellites are in geosynchronus orbit. They are at 20,200 km (geosynchronous orbit is at 42,164 km) and the period is 11 hrs 58 min (half the sidereal day period of a geosynchronous orbit). The orbital speed is about 42,164 km/hr whereas the Earth's surface is moving (due to rotation) at 1,674 km/hr at the equator and zero km/hr at the poles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by greyseal, posted 09-17-2009 2:39 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 531 by greyseal, posted 09-17-2009 9:27 AM JonF has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 531 of 687 (524518)
09-17-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by JonF
09-17-2009 8:24 AM


Re: Time changes
Oops! I got a theoretical clock-in-orbit and the real-life-GPS satellites mixed up.
Of course, moving relative to the ground will create a bigger difference than not, so that hardly negates the point, but - I was wrong!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by JonF, posted 09-17-2009 8:24 AM JonF has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 532 of 687 (524539)
09-17-2009 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 527 by Modulous
09-16-2009 6:56 PM


Re: Re Light
I spent a few hours last night reading up on relativity. It's a fascinating subject and I can see why a misunderstanding can occur. In our minds based on daily experience, there are things that are absolute. But the theory of relativity throws that out and says that time and space are relative to whomever is doing the observation.
Honestly ICANT, I don't think you should be arguing against Physics. Physics relies on mathematics and mathematics is one of three things that I've learned you can count on in Philosophy 101, the other two being deductive logic and definitions. SR is not the feverish dreams of madmen - they do have the mathematics to back it up.
More to the point, I trust physics because physics can explain how my computer works or how an airplane stays in the air or how to build a skyscraper or the other multitude of things in my life that I take for granted but for which physics has developed formulae to explain. Physics can even use those formulae to build better airplanes or safer skyscrapers or faster computers because the math works. You trust Physics daily, sometimes with your life, so why can't you accept SR, a branch of Physics?
The concepts can be admittedly difficult. The idea that time and space are not absolute goes against everything our daily experience says. But it works, in practice as well as in theory because the math works, even if you and I don't understand it.
However, if it helps, you can check out this website
In the example used to explain time dilation, there are two observers, a stationary to us observer and an observer in a car moving in relation to us and the stationary observer. At rest, a device is set up so that a light pulse bounces between two parallel mirrors. Speed = (distance) / time, so using the distance between the mirrors, and the speed of light, we know the time. Now imagine the same car moving and passes the stationary observer. The observer in the car wlll still get the same result finding for time because nothing has changed. But the stationary observer will see something else. To the stationary observer, the light pulse is seen to have traveled a greater distance, following along the hypotenuse of a triangle. Since the speed of light is invariable and we know the distance the light pulse traveled, we can calculate Time observed in the moving car. And to the stationary observer, time in the moving car will be slower in relation to the stationary observer's time even though time passes normally for the observer in the car. That is the Time Dilation Effect as I understand it at this point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2009 6:56 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 533 of 687 (524639)
09-17-2009 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 524 by JonF
09-16-2009 2:05 PM


Re: Time changes
Hi JonF,
JonF writes:
Interesting question. AFAIK we don't know the answer yet.
So gravity and velocity has nothing to do with it then.
JonF writes:
Time exists independent of Man's definitions, and runs at different rates depending on the state of the observer and the observed.
Space exists.
Time does not exist except when man uses the concept of time to measure duration/existence.
Existence does not speed up or slow down for anything it just is.
Message 525
JonF writes:
You don't get to travel at the speed of light. You can't speed up that 0.1%. You can speed up almost to it, but you cannot ever reach it no matter what kind of spaceship you envision.
Why not?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by JonF, posted 09-16-2009 2:05 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by NosyNed, posted 09-17-2009 11:24 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 545 by JonF, posted 09-18-2009 8:07 AM ICANT has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 534 of 687 (524642)
09-17-2009 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 533 by ICANT
09-17-2009 10:59 PM


space and time
Space exists.
Time does not exist except when man uses the concept of time to measure duration/existence.
There is no time. There is no space. There is only spacetime where the two are tangled together and related by relativistic equations. You can not pull them apart and that is why the clocks don't run in synchronization.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by ICANT, posted 09-17-2009 10:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 12:04 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 535 of 687 (524653)
09-17-2009 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by Modulous
09-16-2009 6:56 PM


Re Light
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
Let's not since travelling at the speed of light is not the case I am asking you about.
In the example I gave, what do you think we would measure the speed of light travelling away from us at?
Well my bike was modified with an on/off switch that works just like the light switch. When I turn my light on my bike instantly stops and then resumes traveling at 99.9% of the speed of light. The stop/restart consumes 1 second.
Therefore the light traveled 299,792,458 meters during my one second stop/restart.
The light then continues to pull away from me at the rate of 299,792.458 meters per second.
I don't have any idea what you are seeing as you ran off 299,792,458 meters in front of me during my 1 second stop/restart.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Modulous, posted 09-16-2009 6:56 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2009 8:37 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 536 of 687 (524657)
09-18-2009 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 534 by NosyNed
09-17-2009 11:24 PM


Re: space and time
Hi Ned,
NoseyNed writes:
There is no time. There is no space.
I will agree there is no time.
If there is no space what is that expanding between things in the universe?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by NosyNed, posted 09-17-2009 11:24 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by Izanagi, posted 09-18-2009 3:48 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 546 by JonF, posted 09-18-2009 8:14 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 537 of 687 (524671)
09-18-2009 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 526 by Straggler
09-16-2009 3:06 PM


Re: What Is Your Point? What Is Your Model?
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
ICANT what is your point here?
Time does not exist other than as a concept of man invented to measure duration/existence.
Straggler writes:
Are you denying that a clock at the top of a mountain will progress at a faster rate than a clock at the bottom due to the gravitational effects of General relativity?
No where have I denied that gravity or velocity or even dropping a clock does not effect the clock.
The clock on the mountain runs faster because of less gravity.
The clock in the satellite runs faster because it has less gravity and has the added effect of orbiting the earth.
The duration/existence is the same regardless of whether the clock runs fast or slow.
Straggler writes:
Oh so the whole of modern cosmology is a "smokescreen". Devised to bemuse and baffle the rest of us away from the truths that YOU, apparently, know.
Actually the smoke screen I was refering to was all the added fluff that was discussed just to keep from discussing the question...
What is spacetime?
Straggler writes:
ICANT who doesn't even understand why an orbitting body is undergoing an acceleration,
Velocity = A vector quantity whose magnitude is a body's speed .
Acceleration = An increase in the magnitude of the velocity of a moving body, an increase in speed is called a positive acceleration; a decrease in speed is called a negative acceleration.
If my car has the cruise control set at 70 mph and I am going down the road at 70 mph my car is not accelerating.
If I have to slow by pressing the brake the cruise control releases and the car slows. When I press the resume button the car will accelerate to 70 mph and remain constant until you press the brake or encounter a incline in the road. When the car reaches 68 mph the cruise control will accelerate back up to 70 mph.
Straggler writes:
Be explicit.
How about just being honest.
Science does not know the origin of the universe or life. Which has been stated in this thread.
But that does not keep anybody from knowing exactly how it happened. Just go back and read the thread.
There are so many problems with the BBT but nobody will discuss them.
There are those who have said to me here at EvC that we need a new theory.
But it appears until one comes along the BBT is the gospel truth.
Everybody has the mentality that I know what I believe is right so don't question what I put forth as the truth. I know it is gospel because so and so said it.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by Straggler, posted 09-16-2009 3:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by cavediver, posted 09-18-2009 4:36 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 568 by Straggler, posted 09-19-2009 4:01 PM ICANT has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 538 of 687 (524676)
09-18-2009 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 536 by ICANT
09-18-2009 12:04 AM


Re: space and time
Wikipedia writes:
Spacetimes are the arenas in which all physical events take place an event is a point in spacetime specified by its time and place...The basic elements of spacetime are events. In any given spacetime, an event is a unique position at a unique time.
What this means is that in addition to our standard XYZ coordinate system, we have another axis that defines time. Through our 4 axis coordinate system, we can place an event at a specific position at a specific time. For instance, on September 17th, 2009 at 4:15 am we can place you at a specific position on our XYZ coordinate system, probably wherever your bed is. That's spacetime (correct me if I'm mistaken.)
Time is the change along the When axis. Your movement through the physical space would seem to indicate that. At one moment, your finger is hitting the "Y" key in your key board, at another moment past that your finger is hitting the "o" key, at another moment past the second moment your finger is hitting the "u" key, at another moment past the third moment your finger is hitting the "'" key, and so on and so forth. As your hand moves across the keyboard, it has some velocity. Any movement you make has some velocity. Velocity is the measure of speed and direction. Speed is the measure of distance over time. If time did not exist, your hand would have no velocity. If your hand had no velocity, it could not move. But because your hand has velocity, at some future moment, you will have typed out the words, "You're wrong."
The XYZ coordinate system alone is incomplete. If change is a function of time, and time does not exist, then change doesn't exist. Let me put it to you this way:
Imagine that I place a Object Car somewhere in the XYZ plane. You argue there is no When axis. Fine, I'll grant you that. That means that there can never be a change in position for Object Car because a change in position is movement and movement requires velocity which requires time.
But, you might argue, perhaps the object can instantaneously move. Fine. Once again I place Object Car at point A (coordinates X=1,Y=1,Z=1.) Let's say every increment of 1 on the XYZ coordinate plane corresponds to an increment of 1 km. By that measure, X=1 is 1 km away from X=0 and X=10 is 9 km from X=1. Now I instantaneously move it to point B (coordinates X=500000,Y=1,Z=1.) This meant I just moved Object Car 499999 km in zero seconds, which is faster than the speed of light. Amazing! By ignoring time, you've just broken the speed of light. But it wouldn't matter if I only moved Object Car to point C (coordinates X=2,Y=1,Z=1) instead of point B - a change in position of 1 km in no time is still faster than a change in position of 300000km in one second.
That's my reasoning for why Time exists and why it is intricately connected to Space. We know things change in our Universe - our Universe is not static. Because things change in the physical world, we know that Time exists because change is a function of Time. Space and Time are linked to each other so we have spacetime. My explanation is probably simplistic and maybe flawed, so I hope others will expand and clarify where I went wrong.
What you might be arguing against is the arbitrariness of the units of measurements for Time. That is, you might be arguing why a second is one value and not another value. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that because we have an arbitrary definition for a second which can be changed at our whim, Time doesn't exist. If this is the case, you are confusing the unit of measurement for a property with the property itself. If I used quagmires as a unit of measurement for Time and defined a quagmire as the change between Peter getting his first beer to Peter getting drunk, then that would be my unit of measurement for Time. The definitions we use for our units of measures for Time are arbitrary, but Time itself exist.
Think about it this way. People used to use various body parts as a standard of measure for a distance between two points. Quite arbitrary, wouldn't you agree? If it were true today that the definition of a foot is the size of a person's foot, then I would want my foot to be used when I acquired a length, area, or volume of something but a woman's foot to be used when I gave a length, area, or volume of something.
The arbitrariness of a unit of measurement doesn't indicate that the property itself does not exist. Length is a property. I have arbitrarily decided that one Joe is the distance between the top of Stewie's head to the bottom of his feet when he is standing straight. So I can now measure an object's length in Joes. But by your standard, as I perceive it, length cannot exist as a property because I have arbitrarily defined my unit of measurement, Joe. Not only can length not exist, but width and height as well since they all use the same unit of measurement, Joe. If length, width, and height do not exist, then our physical world does not exist. I don't know about you, but I am quite certain of my existence.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 12:04 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 11:18 AM Izanagi has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 539 of 687 (524680)
09-18-2009 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 537 by ICANT
09-18-2009 1:41 AM


Re: What Is Your Point? What Is Your Model?
Straggler writes:
ICANT who doesn't even understand why an orbitting body is undergoing an acceleration
Velocity = A vector quantity whose magnitude is a body's speed
Acceleration = An increase in the magnitude of the velocity of a moving body
You have already been corrected on this by several posters. Why do you insist on posting lies, ICANT? Why cannot you have the decent grace to thank those that corrected you (not me, I appreciate that my posts to you of late will not provoke an attitude of thanks) and go forward having learnt something? Why is your pride and arrogance so huge that you cannot admit to having been wrong on something?
Once again, for the slow one at the back: acceleration is change in velocity. It is a vector. If the direction of a velocity changes but not its magnitude, then it has still accelerated. This is basic high school mechanics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 1:41 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 556 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 1:52 PM cavediver has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 540 of 687 (524698)
09-18-2009 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 489 by mike the wiz
09-12-2009 1:32 PM


mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
I have looked at the photographs and the embryo of a dog and a human was very different to the drawings you show.
I also gave you a photograph. Are you saying it was faked, too?
quote:
I believe the brancial arches do exist, but these rudimentary forms didn't always look the same exactly, in the photographs I saw in the seminar.
Huh? What does "look the same exactly" have to do with anything? And on top of that, how on earth would you know? You still haven't responded to the main point:
One of the three distinguishing features of all chordates is the presence of gill slits during embryogenesis.
Do you deny this?
quote:
It's not that I deny the existence, it's that they are not gill slits.
Apparently, you do. So we're back to the result you claimed you weren't saying: Biologists the world over have all made a catastrophic failure in basic anatomical identification and that these structures that can be dissected at every stage along embryological development and shown how they develop into certain structures in fish, other structures in terrestrial vertebrates, and still others in invertebrates don't actually exist.
Again, one of the three identifying characteristics of ALL chordates is the presence of gill slits during embryogenesis.
Do you deny this?
quote:
I blob that looks like a penis and becomes an arm, isn't a penis-blob even if you name it that.
Huh? As I have asked you repeatedly:
What do these structures become in fish?
There's a reason I am asking you this. It would be nice if you would respond. There is a follow-up question that will follow, but it won't make any sense until you answer the first question:
What do these structures become in fish?
quote:
My only point is that these aren't "gills" in humans, at any stage.
Indeed.
That's why they're called "gill slits," not "gills." Different terms, different meanings. You need to get past the long-discredited claim of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." We've known that wasn't true for decades. At no point is a human embryo a fish and nobody is taught that.
Instead, they are taught the truth: Humans are chordates and as such, they have gill slits as embryos.
Do you deny that one of the three defining characteristics of all chordates is the presence of gill slits during embryogenesis?
quote:
That these might become gills in fish is logically irrelevant because we wouldn't call these "human lung arches", would we?
No, because they don't become lungs in humans. They don't even become related to lungs in humans. Now, please answer the question:
What do these structures become in fish?
quote:
If these rudimentary arches are 100% accurately the same as one stage, as human branchial arches, then prove this
I have. They are one of the three defining characteristics of all chordates: Gill slits as embryos.
You seem to be upset that instead of "trisomy-21," someone used the term "Down's Syndrome," as if those two don't mean the same thing.
quote:
otherwise I am not obliged to believe that these rudimentary shapes are the "same" things in fish, human, dog.
So we're back to the result you claimed you weren't saying: Biologists the world over have all made a catastrophic failure in basic anatomical identification and that these structures that can be dissected at every stage along embryological development and shown how they develop into certain structures in fish, other structures in terrestrial vertebrates, and still others in invertebrates don't actually exist.
Do all chordates have gill slits as embryos?
quote:
Actual photographs are what is needed
And you were given them. And yet you're still complaining. Ergo, the problem isn't the biology but rather your inability to accept your own ignorance.
quote:
I do not trust you in the least.
Nor should you. That's why I provided you with references. Do you deny them? If so, what is the basis by which you deny them? Did you look them up? Did you read them? Did you do any actual research of any kind regarding this topic or are you simply automatically gainsaying everything you hear?
Why is it that in this entire discussion, I have been the only one providing external sources?
quote:
If you can show a fish, a dog and a human photograph of embryos at the same stage of development, then i will change my mind.
I did. Have you forgotten already?
This isn't about the biology. There is no evidence that will change your mind. What you demanded was provided specifically and directly to you and still you are insisting that biologists are incapable of performing simple anatomical identification. You know better. Never mind that you haven't shown any evidence to support your position. You'll conveniently ignore the very thing you demanded and hope we don't notice.
quote:
That is your homework, not mine,
Which is why I provided it.
Before you even asked for it.
Have you forgotten already?
quote:
because it is you who wanted to persue this in detail when it wasn't the topic.
Huh? You're the one who brought it up. Typical creationist response, though: Demand X, thinking that it cannot be shown. When X is shown, deny it, ignore it, insist it isn't Y, and then claim that it is off-topic, hoping nobody will notice that you were the one who demanded it in the first place.
quote:
If you are so confident they will be like the drawings, then show us. The likes of Gould disagree.
I showed you photographs.
And I quoted Gould. And Sagan.
Have you forgotten already?
quote:
I pointed out something sound when I said that if they never become gills at all, in anyway, in say, a human or a dog, then why should they be called gill slit?
We're getting to that. You need to answer the first question first, though:
What do these structures become in fish?
You seem to be upset that someone said "Down's Syndrome" instead of "trisomy 21" even though those mean the same thing.
quote:
Why should we believe that slightly similar rudimentary shapes prove something about gills where there are no actual gills, only rudimentary shapes?
Because comparative embryology shows us that the gill slits of chordate embryos become gills in aquatic life, jaws in vertebrates, and other throat structures in terrestrial life.
What do these structures become in fish?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 1:32 PM mike the wiz 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