Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,215 Year: 5,472/9,624 Month: 497/323 Week: 137/204 Day: 7/4 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Light Time Problem
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 185 of 278 (894246)
05-08-2022 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by candle2
05-06-2022 11:16 AM


The big difference is that I put more trust
in observational science (true science) than
historical science.

OS, for me, stands head and shoulder above HS,
which is open to subjective interpretation.

I could go on and on about how OS proves time
after time that evolutionary concepts are wrong.
...

Polystrata consists of fossils, mostly trees, but
also animals, that extend upright through multiple
geologic layers. Supposedly with each layer being
millions of years old.
No, you don't practice observational science. Nor does any creationist I've encountered -- indeed, what I've witnessed is that when a creationist does start practicing observational science then he does not remain a creationist for very long. Reality packs a powerful bite, whereas creationism only has unconvincing barking.
Despite the term being yet another BS creationist dog-whistle buzzword, observational science would most definitely involve going out and actually looking at the evidence, AKA "observing". Scientists do that all the time, whereas creationist never do! Thus, creationism is the opposite of "observational science."
For example there's the standard creationist BS lie about the formation of geologic layers (refer to Steve Austin's lie about that in Message 173). You know, that lie that you repeated and which is at the end of that qs box.
Now, a geologist would have gone to the site or at least read the survey report of the geologist who had gone to that site to collect and record the data. There, they would have observed the evidence, which would have included the properties of the layers of rock. There's a lot that a geologist can tell by that examination. For example, there's the rate of depositation for each of those layers (described by Austin's own source but completely ignored by Austin). One characteristic of a rapid deposit (one that even you should be able to understand) is the mixing of rocks of various sizes with the dirt, indicative of rapidly moving water -- in contrast, slow depositation would result in fine-grained particles, much like the varves in the bottom of a lake or shallow sea (slow moving water cannot keep large rocks in suspension).
Austin's misquoted source described those signs of rapid depositation around the Lancaster trees in question. Each layer deposited within a very short period of time (like within a day or so), not "for millions of years".
A scientist would go look at the evidence, observe the evidence, and report on the evidence. In sharp contrast, a creationist never looks at the evidence, but rather just makes up stupid shit and lies to everybody.
Present actual references to actual geological studies of polystrate fossils so that we can see what the actual characteristics of the strata are. Then and only then would we be able to discuss your claim with you.
Of course, we also understand that you will never be able to provide any of those references to us. We know that because your own creationist almost never provide those references, not even to you. Instead, all they ever do is to feed you lies which you swallow up eagerly so that you can vomit them out here.
 
Why is it that you post nothing but lies here?
Don't you know even one creationist claim that isn't a lie?
If you do know at least one that isn't a lie, then why don't you post it? Instead of this long string of silly lies that you keep throwing at us.
 
People accept evolution, even when clearly disproved
by real science, because they refuse to accept the
alternative.
A few problems with that:
  1. "People accept evolution, " Uh, yes, but ... you keep using that word but I don't think that it means what you think it means. In fact, you definitely do not use it to mean what it actually does.
    When we use that word, we refer to what evolution actually is. But when you use it, you refer to some completely and utterly bizarre whack-a-doodle bullshit nonsense pack of lies. Nobody has been able to figure out what the fuck you're talking about because you refuse to tell us! As if you do know better but you are intent on deliberately deceiving us. Typical creationist!
    Bottom line: you're not even talking about evolution, so the rest is nothing but your usual bullshit lies.
  2. ... even when clearly disproved by real science, ...
    Actually, real evolution is completely supported by real science. And real science clearly disproves creationism's fake "evolution" along with every creationist claim I've ever seen presented in the past 40 years.
  3. ... because they refuse to accept the
    alternative.
    The "alternative" is "creation science" and your false theology that depends on creationism's bullshit lies for its very existence.
    Damned right we reject that wretchedly sorry excuse of an "alternative"! We normals know better than to feed on your steady diet of bullshit.
Their mindset is "I want it this way-not that.
The most flagrant case of projection I've ever seen. The world is the way that it is, the way that it was created (as per an actual creationist, not one of you fake ones), and the world the way it actually is is what science studies. So a scientists primary motivation is to learn as much as possible about how the world really is.
But creationists cannot abide the world as it actually is. Their theology misleads them into believing things about the world which are contrary to fact. And even worse, their theology misleads them into believing that if the world is really as it actually is, then that somehow disproves God. Therefore, creationists must deny reality and insist ... wait for it ... wait for it ... "I want it this way-not that.
So it is the creationist mindset that you are describing, not that of us normals. Pure projection!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by candle2, posted 05-06-2022 11:16 AM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 193 of 278 (894258)
05-08-2022 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by candle2
05-08-2022 9:45 AM


Re: You're missing the real message
Percy, I don't ignore what people say.
Yes, you do. And you have admitted doing it! Like my explanation to you how evolution actually works (HINT: it's not your abysmally stupid "cat evolving into a dog" lie) which you told me that you did not even read because [voice=whining_little_baby]"my phone is too small".[/voice]
I deal only in facts.
No, you don't. Rather, the exact opposite.
You ignore all facts. Instead you deal only in lies.
And since your god can only be served through lies, that means that your god is "The Lord of Lies", AKA Satan.
You've been outed, dude! Go slithering back to your coven. And stop your fucking lying!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by candle2, posted 05-08-2022 9:45 AM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 194 of 278 (894259)
05-08-2022 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by candle2
05-08-2022 8:48 AM


Re: You're missing the real message
Now to cast yet more pearls before swine.
NWR, all books are written by humans, even the ones
that only make idiotic assumptions and guesses
about the source of life.

At least the authors of the Holy Bible received their
knowledge straight from the Creator.
Ludicrous nonsense born of abject ignorance and willful self-delusion.
Learn something about the history of the Bible and how it was written.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Learning is against your religion.
All books are written by Man. All books are the Word of Man, including the many Bibles.
Add to that the multitude of fallible human interpretations. On one level, every single translation is an interpretation. You are obviously a monoglot, so you would not understand that translation is not just substituting individual words, but rather you must determine what the source text says (AKA "interpret") in order to then express the same idea in the target language. Some translations are simple while many others are much trickier which can result in a lot being lost (or added) in translation. And it doesn't help when there exist multiple source texts that don't say the exact same thing (in my Koiné class we used Bruce Metzger's Greek New Testament which annotated variant text for so many verses -- Revelation promises that anyone who changes even one letter of that book will be most severely punished for it, yet even Revelation is filled with text variants).
But the multitude of fallible human interpretations causes even more problems. Is slavery good or evil? Both sides of that issue used the same Bible and even the exact same Bible verses to defend or condemn slavery depending on their position. IOW, they already had their position and "truth" at the start, so then all they did was to gather "evidences" to support their pre-determined position. Exactly as creationists do.
And that multitude of fallible human interpretations results in a multitude of fallible human created theologies, each one "basing itself" on "the same Bible" and arriving at entirely different conclusions.
Despite your lies about it, you do not believe in the Bible or even in "God" (which you have demonstrated amply is different from the actual Christian "God"). You believe in your theology.
And it is a false theology because it fails the Matthew 7:20 Test (KJV):
quote:
Matthew
7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
You and your steady stream of lies are that evil fruit, hence your religion of a corrupt tree that should be cut down and thrown into the fire.
But of course that doesn't mean anything to you, because it's what the Bible says that Jesus said. And since when did what either the Bible or Jesus says mean anything to you?
The only thing that could be considered the true Word of God would be The Creation itself. You know, the very thing that you deny so vehemently as you use your graven idol (ie, your Man-made theology) to blot it from your view.
quote:
Man wrote the Bible.
God wrote the World.

Back in the day when AOL was in the web hosting business, a number of us created our first websites.
One such was created by George H. Birkett, a grandfather and devout Christian. His theme was that the Bible is the God's Second Testament, His First Testament being Nature. The purpose of the Second Testament is to prepare us for reading the First Testament.
 

From my links page:
quote:
Blending Faith with Reality by George H. Birkett
Honorable mention, since the link is broken (another victim of AOL leaving the web server business) and I have not found a new site by him, but I think I did find his obituary.
George Birkett is a devout Christian grandfather who is putting some of his thoughts about religion and his faith on his web site. He also accepts evolution as a scientific explanation and has concerns about creation science. Part of that concern is that creationists have chosen to worship the Bible instead of worshipping God.
From his "Ignorant adoration?" page (link broken):
quote:
However, I see too many signs of what I call "ignorant adoration." That’s when we blindly accept what others tell us what and how to believe. There is no reasoning to it. It’s what someone says the bible says or some kind of denominational tenet or doctrine or dogma that encourages denial of evidence (clues) and interferes with our applying our God given intellect to contemplate what the evidence tells us. I can cite dozens of examples that are obvious to me. If I did, though, I would be telling you what clues to read and how to interpret them and I would be doing for you, or to you, the very thing that I protest. I urge all of us, each of us, first to be aware, then to appreciate, then to dedicate our lives to reading the clues and learning what others have learned before us to help us apply our own intellect and reason towards a personal quest for truth within the framework of reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by candle2, posted 05-08-2022 8:48 AM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 196 of 278 (894268)
05-09-2022 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by candle2
05-08-2022 9:45 AM


SHOW US, candle2!
I deal only in facts.
Well, PROVE IT! Present facts instead of your incessant lies!
Specifically:
True evolution would for example be a cat evolving into a
dog.
Since you persist with that particular extremely stupid creationist lie, we must insist:
SHOW US!!!
Show us any scientific source which describes evolution in that manner!
Show us where evolution ever says or teaches that!
DO NOT QUOTE A CREATIONIST SOURCE, since that source would only repeat the same lie. However, it is possible for a creationist source to provide a scientific source that the creationist claims to say that -- it is sadly common for creationists to misrepresent the scientific sources that they cite, most often because they never bothered to even look at those sources let alone read them.
Also, DO NOT JUST SIMPLY REPEAT YOUR LIE AD NAUSEAUM! Instead, make some effort to support it, defend it, and discuss it!

Edited by dwise1, : changed subtitle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by candle2, posted 05-08-2022 9:45 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by candle2, posted 05-13-2022 2:02 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 198 of 278 (894352)
05-13-2022 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by candle2
05-13-2022 2:02 PM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
Dwise, you keep saying that I have the concept of
evolution wrong. Regardless of how I state it you
and the other keep saying no; that is not how it
happened.

I want you to state step-by-step how it has unfolded
over the billions of years.
And you want me to perform that herculean task while you stand on one foot?
Like in that asshole gentile's demand of Rabbi Hillel? Just so you can avoid answering our basic simple request that you support your own stupid creationist lie. Typical piece-of-shit lying creationist asshole!
Here is what you are trying to avoid responding to (from Message 196 which was replying to your Message 189):
DWise1 writes:
Specifically:
cowardly candle writes:
True evolution would for example be a cat evolving into a
dog.
Since you persist with that particular extremely stupid creationist lie, we must insist:
SHOW US!!!
Show us any scientific source which describes evolution in that manner!
Show us where evolution ever says or teaches that!
So show us, asshole! Or admit that your lies are indeed lies!
And oh BTW, we have explained to you many times how evolution works and why your lie is so ludicrously wrong. In my Message 146 I pointed you back to just a few of those explanations which you refused to read!:
DWise1 writes:
I explained it to you in Message 484. READ IT! And don't you dare whine like a baby that "your phone is too smwall ... waaaaahh!!!!". Pull your head out of your ass and learn the truth of what evolution says.
And stop repeating your stupid creationist lies. Why is it that creationists have no other recourse than to lie about everything? To serve their god through lies and deception, with reveals their (and your) god to be The Lord of Lies, AKA Satan!
 
I repeated the text of Message 484 in Message 70. Read it!
The new species which form from their parent species are still of the same "kind". That is exactly what evolution says! If they were to have become a different "kind", then that would disprove evolution and almost the whole of biology.
 
 
My opthamologist ...
Yeah, about that.
You have single-mindedly posted one lie after another here. So what possible reason should we have to think that you are suddenly telling us that truth about anything?
I think that you are lying to us yet again, this time about cataract surgery. Because you are a lying creationist. Like the scorpion in that constantly cited story where he has to sting because it's in his nature. You have to lie about everything, because as a creationist and a "true Christian" you are incapable of ever telling the truth. You are driven to lie.

Edited by dwise1, : corrected HTML entity code, nbsp


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by candle2, posted 05-13-2022 2:02 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by candle2, posted 05-21-2022 9:50 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 201 of 278 (894359)
05-13-2022 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by AZPaul3
05-13-2022 4:52 PM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
A little perspective.
Your counter-challenge to wickless:
I want you to state step-by-step how your creation has unfolded over the billions of years. I want you to list your absolute proofs.
While that is an accurate depiction of his "counter-challenge" to me, it does not reflect my question to him. The question that triggered his extreme reaction. The question that terrifies him because he has no answer for it, nor has any creationist ever been able to answer it:
quote
What the hell are you talking about?
The moment that you ask a creationist to support his claim, any claim at all*, he shrivels up (like a demon roasting on a spit) and tries any trick he can to avoid it. Such as throwing "impossible questions" at you, or just plain running away in terror.
That is what we are seeing wickless doing here. Like all creationists I've encountered (with such extremely few exceptions that I cannot recall any), he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. All he knows is how to repeat verbatim the false claims that he's been spoon-fed, but he knows absolutely nothing about those claims nor any of the reasoning (to be overly generous) that went into their formulation. Ask him to explain anything about his claims and he literally has nothing. That is why someone trying to discuss his claims with him is so terrifying for him. Especially if he was also taught the pernicious lie that his faith and his god depend completely on that false claim being true (which of course it is not).
 
But even without that, there's the sheer imbalance in his response. By analogy, ask Putin why he's attacking Ukraine and his response is to launch all his nukes at you.
I ask wickless to support his own claim by answering some very valid and pertinent questions about it and his response is to "nuke" me with an impossible challenge.
It should be so easy for him to just respond to my request that he support his own claim. But he won't.

FOOTNOTE:
For an example, refer to my page, BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: Should Kids be Taught About God?.
Creationist Bill Morgan's SOP was to just throw "impossible questions" at me and then when I'd answer his "impossible question" and try to discuss it with him, he would go to extremes to avoid doing so (eg, he'd throw a different "impossible question" at me, claim that I hadn't answered it, or run away). When he'd claim that I hadn't answered his question, I would ask him to please explain what is was about my answer that he rejected, which he would never ever do, but rather avoid answering my simple "what are you talking about?" question with extreme avoidance. Sound familiar?
One of his "impossible questions" was actually a good question, except that it was ambiguous (which I addressed in my response):
quote
"If God exists, should the kids be taught about Him?"
A third-party observer described my answer as brilliant, which it actually was. All Bill did was to complain that I hadn't answered his question. So I asked him why he thought that, to which he would do nothing but repeat the same ambiguous question over and over again -- and to which I would repeat my answer to him multiple times.
Finally, I made my final request that he explain why he was rejecting my answer, to which he ran away in an even more extreme manner: he abruptly closed his email account and did not post a new address in his creationist club's newsletter for the next two years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by AZPaul3, posted 05-13-2022 4:52 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 212 of 278 (894487)
05-17-2022 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by candle2
05-17-2022 9:00 AM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
Cut the fake religious crap! ANSWER THE DAMNED QUESTION!
As I had to repeat it YET AGAIN in Message 198:
DWise1 writes:
Here is what you are trying to avoid responding to (from Message 196 which was replying to your Message 189):
DWise1 writes:
Specifically:
cowardly candle writes:
True evolution would for example be a cat evolving into a
dog.
Since you persist with that particular extremely stupid creationist lie, we must insist:
SHOW US!!!
Show us any scientific source which describes evolution in that manner!
Show us where evolution ever says or teaches that!
So show us, asshole! Or admit that your lies are indeed lies!
And oh BTW, we have explained to you many times how evolution works and why your lie is so ludicrously wrong. In my Message 146 I pointed you back to just a few of those explanations which you refused to read!:
DWise1 writes:
I explained it to you in Message 484. READ IT! And don't you dare whine like a baby that "your phone is too smwall ... waaaaahh!!!!". Pull your head out of your ass and learn the truth of what evolution says.
And stop repeating your stupid creationist lies. Why is it that creationists have no other recourse than to lie about everything? To serve their god through lies and deception, with reveals their (and your) god to be The Lord of Lies, AKA Satan!
 
I repeated the text of Message 484 in Message 70. Read it!
The new species which form from their parent species are still of the same "kind". That is exactly what evolution says! If they were to have become a different "kind", then that would disprove evolution and almost the whole of biology.
 
You made a claim about what evolution teaches, which makes it your responsibility to defend that claim!
We are sick and tired of you fake "true Christians" who use their "God" as an excuse to avoid responsibility for your own misdeeds.
And I'm sure that actual Christians are also sick and tired of you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by candle2, posted 05-17-2022 9:00 AM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 213 of 278 (894488)
05-17-2022 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Percy
05-15-2022 3:06 PM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
I want you to describe step-by-step how religion has unfolded over the thousands of years, and I want you to list your absolute proofs. Anything you can't prove must be an assumption.
First, he didn't even begin to do what you had asked of him. He's the idiot.
Second, perhaps a slightly more neutral counter-challenge might be:
quote
Describe the whole of human history in complete detail. Leave nothing out.
Present it in 25 words or less, because candle2's phone is too small.
 
As I alluded to earlier, his "challenge" is similar to the well-known story of Rabbi Hillel and the uppity Gentile jerk, circa 20 BCE:
quote
The comparative response to the challenge of a prospective convert who asked that the Torah be explained to him while he stood on one foot, illustrates the character differences between Shammai and Hillel. Shammai dismissed the man. Hillel gently chastised the man, saying: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
When we learned that story in Rabbinic Lit class, it was that the Gentile insisted that they recite "the whole of the Law", which is to say the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. The schools had them memorize everything -- in later centuries that would include memorizing the entire Talmud, which is the size of a non-trivial encyclopedia (and has no index nor table of contents, so the only way you could use it was to memorize it). That meant that reciting the entire Torah from memory would have been doable, but very non-trivial. And would take far longer than anyone could stand on one foot.
A couple things to note about that story:
  1. Yes, it is the Golden Rule. Taught by a Pharisee in 20 BCE, a full half century before the purported ministry of Jesus. It truly is a pity that "Christians" have forsaken Pharisee teachings like they have.
  2. Yes, you did hear it referenced in the Star Trek:TOS episode, Dagger of the Mind. Note that the script credits went to one "Simon bar David".
 

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 05-15-2022 3:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 219 of 278 (894496)
05-17-2022 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by candle2
05-17-2022 4:53 PM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
So many pearls to cast. Such abysmally stupid swine to cast them before.
(HINT: That's a biblical reference, so you are certain to not recognize it.)
Percy, you still haven't offered one thing that
supports evolution.
You fucking idiot!
Percy was asking you to please support your own claims. Not only do you refuse to ever support your own claims, but you are instead taking extreme measures to avoid doing so.
Your constant frantic attempts to change the subject in order to avoid supporting your own claims constitute hard evidence that you are completely aware that all your claims are nothing but a steady streams of lies flowing copiously out your ass! Conducting a determined cover-up is evidence of knowledge of guilt.
I keep looking for hard core
evidence, ...
You would never be able to recognize the evidence because your own lies have blinded you to reality.
Specific to this situation is your lie that "True evolution would for example be a cat evolving into a dog." So you expect any evidence for evolution to show something like a "cat evolving into a dog". Which there is no evidence of because your expectation is based on nothing but a stupid creationist lie.
And that is why you are such a fucking idiot and will always be a fucking idiot.
 
So stop your stupid bullshit and answer the fucking question!

Edited by dwise1, : Ah yes! The old   HTML entity code trick! Second time I fell for it this week!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by candle2, posted 05-17-2022 4:53 PM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 228 of 278 (894509)
05-18-2022 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by candle2
05-17-2022 4:25 PM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
These people accepted Satan as their God in exchange
for power, wealth, and fame.

Famous magicians make deals with demon in which
the demon assists them with their magic, but after
death the magician must become their slave.
What magic trick did you learn when you sold your soul to the Father of Lies and swore to serve Him through non-stop lies and deception?
If you want to deny your servitude to Satan (which would be yet another of your many lies), then argue convincingly that the Christian God is to be served through lies and deception.
Of course, you will do all you can to avoid answering those questions and requests. Because you know full well that you do serve Satan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by candle2, posted 05-17-2022 4:25 PM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 231 of 278 (894553)
05-21-2022 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by candle2
05-21-2022 9:50 AM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
Use [qs] tags to quote the part of the message you are replying to!. Called dBCodes, they're analogous to HTML tags, but delimited by square brackets ( [ ] ) instead of angle brackets ( < > ). If you need to see an example of how to use those tags, then click on the Peek button of a message (or select Peek Mode if you're in the middle of a reply.
When you fail to tell us what you are "replying" to, then you make it that much more difficult for us to figure out what the hell you're talking about. This "reply" of yours is a typical example, since not only does nothing here has anything at all to do with my Message 198, but it actually defies that demand.
What I demanded of you (quoted directly from my Message 198):
DWise1 writes:
Here is what you are trying to avoid responding to (from Message 196 which was replying to your Message 189):
DWise1 writes:
Specifically:
cowardly candle writes:
True evolution would for example be a cat evolving into a
dog.
Since you persist with that particular extremely stupid creationist lie, we must insist:
SHOW US!!!
Show us any scientific source which describes evolution in that manner!
Show us where evolution ever says or teaches that!
So show us, asshole! Or admit that your lies are indeed lies!
Instead, you just stupidly double-down on being an asshole.
I told you what you need to do (from my Message 135):
DWise1 writes:
For that matter, evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive. There is no inherent conflict between evolution and Divine Creation. And creationists refuse to address that simple fact.
So even if by some unimaginable miracle creationists were to attack actual evolution, that would still do absolutely nothing to prove creation. And especially not their highly specific form of creation. Instead, the immensely more effective approach to proving creation would be to present actual positive evidence FOR creation!
So candle2 must present that evidence for creation! No creationist has ever done so, nor has ever even attempted it.
All you do is use lies to attack "evolution" (which isn't even what evolution actually is). Typical creationist!
 
I need to leave now to pick up a friend at the airport. I'll get back to the new list of lies you just posted.
In the meantime, work on actually replying instead of just trying to deflect with your incessant lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by candle2, posted 05-21-2022 9:50 AM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 237 of 278 (894561)
05-21-2022 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by candle2
05-21-2022 11:28 AM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
Did you ever hear of Hilda, Alberta?

There is an area there that is roughly 14 miles
long that is bulging with fossils of over 55
species, consisting of dinosaurs, clams, fish,
and many mammals.

. . .

The big bad evvolution experts insist that the Red
River was inundated by a "monster storm" that
flooded inland for tens of miles.
What the fuck are you talking about?
The Red River of the North (to distinguish it from the southern river forming part of the border between Texas and Oklahoma) forms the border between North Dakota and Minnesota (for a few years, I would drive across it every day) from which it flows almost directly north (NNE, though very slightly eastwardly) through Winnipeg and on to Lake Winnipeg.
Hilda, Alberta, lies 580 miles to the west of the Red River. 580 miles away! We do realize that you are a fucking idiot, but even you should realize that 580 miles is very much more than "tens of miles".
What the fuck are you talking about?
Reveal your sources for that disinformation! For one thing, we realize that your sources could very well have not said what you claim them to say, but rather your lies are due to your own inability to understand anything that you read.
So SHOW US!
Tissue samples from the numerous sites show
that these animals died just a few thousand
years ago, and not tens of millions.
SOURCES, PLEASE! Otherwise, we have no way of knowing what the fuck you are talking about!
They would rather be willfully ignorant than admit
the plain truth that is right in front of them.
You should avoid writing in front of a mirror. That might help keep you from projecting your own faults so much.
 
And, yet again, just answer the fucking questions instead of constantly demonstrating what a fucking lying idiot you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by candle2, posted 05-21-2022 11:28 AM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(3)
Message 239 of 278 (894570)
05-21-2022 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by candle2
05-21-2022 9:50 AM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
When you talk of
evolution you believe in the "leached from a rock
organism" to every animal/organism alive today.
Isolation has nothing to do with this.
What the fuck are you talking about? Especially considering that you claim to believe that Man was created out of dust as a golem.
And just what the hell is a "rock organism" supposed to be? I never heard of such a thing nor can I imagine what it could be. Korg? Uh, you do realize that that's a comic book character.
Every concepts that evolutionists have invented are
methodically being destroyed by the truth.
Science is the study of the real world, more specifically of the physical universe. Evolution was and continues to be developed through observations of the physical universe, specifically observations of how life actually works. Therefore, what evolution actually is and actually teaches are based on reality. The truth of how the universe works supports science and helps us to detect when we got something wrong so that we can correct it.
Your false YEC theology denies reality and tries desperately to disprove reality. It is what is "methodically being destroyed by the truth."
Pull your head out of your ass and learn something!
Remember when wide-eyed evolutionists strutted
around acting stupid by pretending that vestigial
organs proved evolution?

The coccyx, appendix, body hair, tonsils, wisdom teeth, ete..,
they screamed, serve no purpose. These organs are
now useless, and are evolving away.
Just more of your stupid fucking lies. LEARN SOMETHING!
Nobody except for stupid lying creationists claim that vestigial organs serve no function. Instead, they no longer serve the purposes that they originally did.
If these organs serve no purpose then why do
evolutionists say they evolved in the first place?
Are you really that incredibly stupid? Don't you ever stop and think something through before displaying your idiocy to everybody?
Vestigial organs served an original function. Wouldn't that qualify as your "evolved in the first place"? Of course it would.
Gee, why didn't you think of that? Guess you're too thoroughly indoctrinated (allusion to "professional thinking persons" Majikthise and Vroomfondel in the Deep Thought story).
Remember how Darwin and his blind followers
swore to high heaven that transitional fossils
would eventually be found, and that these fossils
would prove their weak hypothesis of evolution
true?
And we have been finding transitional fossils. Duh?
Your problem is that you have crudely misdefined transitional fossils out of existence. You wouldn't recognize a transitional fossil if it came up and bit you.
LEARN SOMETHING!
This page at talk.origins Archive, Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature, might be a good starting point. Though it might help to look up this particular creationist lie in the Index to Creationist Claims:
quote
Claim CB360:
Practically all "vestigial" organs in man have been shown to have definite uses and not to be vestigial at all.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master
Books, pp. 75-76.
Response:
  1. "Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or
    visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974,
    769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants
    in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in
    horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in
    vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They
    obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in
    other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."
    Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect
    evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new
    niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence
    against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle
    that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70).
    They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is
    compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.
  2. Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if experiments show that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.
Links:
Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
References:
  1. G. & C. Merriam. 1974. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. New York:
    Simon & Schuster.
  2. Morris, H., 1974. (see above).
  3. Yamamoto, Y. and W. R. Jeffery., 2000. Central role for the lens in
    cave fish eye degeneration. Science 289: 631-633.

 
Oh yeah. In the year 2001, the 101 biology textbooks
at Murray State (and numerous other places)were
still using Hackel's fraudulent embryos illustration.
Talk about dishonesty.
What exactly did your textbook say? Did it mention and discuss Haeckel's ideas of recapitulation, showing them to be in error? That would be like an astronomy textbook presenting geo-centrism ... and then showing that heliocentrism is the better model.
Also, did your book use images of Haeckel's actual drawings? Or did it use photographs of embryos?
If your book used photographs, then that means that when you told us that it used Haeckel's illustrations, then you just deliberately lied to us!
Talk about dishonesty
Please LEARN SOMETHING! Try starting with Wells and Haeckel's Embryos on talk.origins Archive.
The rest later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by candle2, posted 05-21-2022 9:50 AM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(4)
Message 242 of 278 (894578)
05-22-2022 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by candle2
05-21-2022 9:50 AM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
Isn't it ludicrous to think that homologous structures
are more indictive of common descent than they are
of a common designer?
Not in the least. Haven't you thought any of this through either? Do you ever even think?
I'm a retired software engineer, BTW, so I tend to think like an engineer. How things work, you know. Also, how preexisting components get incorporated in a new design. BTW, having been a professional designer, "intelligent design" claims look like nothing but empty hand-waving.
So, the claim that a common designer of the vast diversity of species would just use the same parts in all homologous species is not only sheer lunacy, but also yet another deliberate lie BECAUSE THAT"S NOT HOW IT WORKS.
Homologous structures in different species are not identical to each other, are not interchangeable parts. Duh? Every single time a homologous structure gets reused in a "different design", it has to be modified, often drastically.
So then, we keep seeing the same basic structure which has been modified, often drastically so. Hands (eg, human, chimp, gorilla, monkey, lemur), paws, wings, flippers, fins, etc, have the same pattern of parts, but they are greatly modified for their different purposes. Those are not identical sets of parts, but rather modified structures. In most cases of comparing between species, each corresponding bone is present, but they are different even to the point of one species' corresponding bone having lost its original function (eg, in the bird's carpometacarpus in which those same bones fuse together to form a rigid wing-tip -- same bones, only they then fuse together (ie, vestigial remains in which the bones of the hand no longer serve their original purpose).
Now, why would any actual intelligent designer do it that way? A mark of intelligent design by an engineer is the complete replacement of a component which serves the same system-level function of what it's replacing, though internally it could perform that function in a completely different manner.
For example, we owned the higher-end model of a Plymouth mini-van which was mostly the same as the other mini-vans in its line except that it had an entirely different engine (a Mitsubishi engine, for that matter). The original model had an American-made engine, but it was completely replaced.
Another example of intelligent design is interval wipers. Now we use electronics to control the wipers, but originally they used a vacuum line from the engine, after which all new improvements to interval wipers continued to use the vacuum line until it became so complex and unreliable that they just completely replaced it with electronics and a motor. In intelligent designer can make wide-sweeping changes like that.
Why go through all the work and difficulties of using the original design's components by drastically modifying them. And why propagate errors made in the original design throughout all future designs derived from it regardless of how many problems retaining that error causes. For example, the recurrent laryngeal nerve which goes from the brain to the larnyx, but it takes the scenic tour around the aorta which is located just above the heart. It was a direct shot in fish as it went past the heart, but then changes in later tetrapods lengthened the neck and moved the heart further down, causing that nerve, still tangled up with the heart, to have to lengthen; from that Wikipedia article linked to above:
quote
Evidence of evolution
The extreme detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerves, about 4.6 metres (15 ft) in the case of giraffes, is cited as evidence of evolution, as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.
An intelligent designer would have corrected that mistake in later models, but evolution cannot. Evolution is stuck with working with what's already there. No massive component replacements are possible.
Indeed, the way that evolution works is that it modifies already existing structures to either better serve its purpose or to serve a different purpose. So while it would be a waste of time and work for an intelligent designer to have to modify an existing structure, that's the only process for evolution to use.
Therefore, homologous structures are indeed more indictive of common descent than they are of a common designer, since that is exactly how evolution needs to work while there is no reason for an intelligent designer would constrained to doing it in the same hard way that evolution does. Indeed, an intelligent designer who refuses to completely redesign components but insists on just continuing to modify an original design (which in turn makes the new design increasingly complex and difficult to maintain -- I encountered that problem many times in my career) is a poor engineer. An intelligent designer has a choice -- and a smart one would make that choice -- while evolution has no other choice.
Homologous structures are very strong evidence of common descent and evolution.
You really should try to learn something about evolution.
Why would blind and random evolution lead to
Improvement? There is not a law that says this is
a requirement. There is not one law in nature that
states complex organs can be constructed little
by little; generation after generation.
You really need to learn science, especially the basics. You don't even know what a law is!
First, you mischaracterize evolution as being "random". To determine exactly where and how you are getting evolution as abysmally wrong as you do, we need to know what you think evolution is and how it works. But you are too terrified to tell us, so that makes it much harder for us to help you. You need to help us to help you.
Evolution does not involve changes "by change", but rather those changes evolve. You make the gross error of defining evolutionary processes by one and only one step in the process while ignoring the rest -- that would be like describing making an omelet as nothing more than whisking the eggs while you completely ignore cooking that mixture in a pan.
Evolutionary processes are multi-step and include reproduction, mutations/crossovers, and selection. Here is a description of the basic structure of a genetic algorithm, which is in turn based on evolutionary processes (AKA "how evolution works"):
quote
Step One: Generate the initial population of individuals randomly. (First generation)
Step Two: Repeat the following generational steps until termination:
  1. Evaluate the fitness of each individual in the population (time limit, sufficient fitness achieved, etc.)
  2. Select the fittest individuals for reproduction. (Parents)
  3. Breed new individuals by making copies of the parents and introducing random changes through crossover and mutation operations, thus giving birth to offspring.
  4. Replace the least-fit individuals of the population with new individuals.

Evolutionary processes are not random even though there is some randomness in one of the steps -- ie, mutations and crossovers are random, but the selection step is most definitely not random.
How can that produce order? How's about taking a random mixture of rocks off all different sizes and sorting them into separate piles by size?
quote
  1. Set up grates, sieves if you would, with different size holes. Make those to be on shake tables to facilitate the sorting. Arrange those grates in increasing size.
  2. Pass the rock mixture over the grates. The smaller rocks will fall through while the larger rocks cannot.
  3. You end up with a pile of rocks sorted by size under each table. Sorted by a blind process.

In evolution, the sieve function is natural selection in which the individuals who are better able to survive to become parents will have their traits better represented in the next generation's gene pool.
This is really basic stuff. Did you really learn nothing at all in your biology class? How very sad.
One can believe this if one wishes to do so. But,
I would rather stick with real science.
You really should try real science some time. It is so much fun and far more interesting than the mental masturbation you engage in instead. Plus, unlike the prejudice against physical masturbation, your mental masturbation really does rot your brain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by candle2, posted 05-21-2022 9:50 AM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 248 of 278 (894590)
05-23-2022 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Percy
05-22-2022 6:07 PM


Re: SHOW US, candle2!
But maybe you're thinking of Message 136 where you appeared to liken "kind" to "species".
As we already know all too well, basically creationists have no clue what they are talking about. They just throw "fancy" words out as part of their hand-waving SOP.
We've seen them equate "kind" to species or genus or family, each of which leads to problems for them. We even had one creationist who equated "kind" to the phylum level (eg, Chordata, vertebrates), which was wildly off the mark. Though I seem to recall that when we explained to him what a phylum is then he backed away from that. Oh dear, was that Dredge?
There was also another creationist who was with us only a short while. He was wed to "biblical kinds", but in his case he was trying to correlate that with what the Bible itself said those "kinds" are; eg, "creeping kinds". Good luck with that, but at least he was actually trying to remain true to the Bible.
So why don't you stop lying and making it up as you go along while ignoring everything everyone says in response. You're not fooling anyone, and you're giving Christianity a bad name. God's not going to say, "Well, sure, he lied constantly, but at least it was while arguing against evolution, so I guess he's good to go. Beam him up!"
Certainly most will agree that Christians should not lie. Unfortunately that sentiment is not universal.
A couple decades or so ago I met a fundamentalist Christian online who opposed "creation science". Carl Drews' site, Christianity and Evolution is at Theistic Evolution - Faith and Science are Compatible -- plus he explicitly names his position as being theistic evolution. In his personal story he explains why he had to leave a fundamentalist church which he loved for its good works, but he could not abide the pastors basically advocating "lying for the Lord" (follow the link to read his entire story):
quote
About a month after that I heard that the church was to begin a class on evolution and creationism, featuring a videotape series by a creationist organization. The pastors enthusiastically endorsed the class during worship announcements. It was obvious that evolution would be attacked and scoffed at. I confronted the senior pastor and asked him how he could do this in the spirit of what we had discussed. He urged me to take the class.
So I did. I checked out the references that the video speakers cited, and looked up their claims in the public library and on the World Wide Web. I quickly discovered the same pattern that I had found in the pamphlet years before [DWise1: that was the original Big Daddy? Chick Pubs tract; he describes that experience earlier].
Certain portions of the presentation mocked and derided evolutionists. The speakers' scholarship was sloppy, with numerous misquotations and incorrect or obsolete statements about evolutionary theory. Their science was weak and not very convincing. It was deeply discouraging to sit in class week after week and hear the two speakers make statements of science that I knew to be wrong. It was upsetting to hear them cite a mainstream or evolutionist reference so confidently, and then to find when I checked the reference that they had distorted the meaning of the original source. I cannot and will not tolerate false statements and distortions, no matter what is the point being made, no matter what is the greater truth that is supposed to be served.
The ninth commandment makes no distinction between bearing false witness about Biblical and non-Biblical materials. It's extremely important to tell the truth about science, too.
I prepared a sheet of notes about what I had found that was wrong in each class, and made this available at the beginning of each next class. Only about a third of the other students even looked at my findings. During our short discussions there were some attempts to explain away the errors that I had found. These attempts were not researched very well, and usually I could point out that some creationist example like Paluxy River had been discredited years ago.
I wrote three detailed letters to the pastors during the long 12 weeks of the video class. They responded to my objections by saying that the speakers do a good job of preaching against evolution, and that the incorrect statements about science don't matter very much in that big picture. They contended without details that the errors I had cited were subjective. They refused to announce that some of the information presented was misleading or not accurate, and they also refused to exhort people to check out and verify the claims that were made. They urged me to continue the class.
I hated going to church on Sunday mornings. When the class was finally over I had a final talk with the senior pastor to make sure that I understood his position correctly, and to verify that no corrective action concerning the class was in the works. There was none; in fact, there were plans to show one of the videos to the children's group.
We left that church. We left [u]not[/u] because they conducted a video series attacking evolution, nor even because that series supported those attacks using incorrect information. We left because the church refused to announce that the class had flaws, declined to investigate the errors that were properly reported, and refused to urge people to get independent witness. The problem was not differing views. The problem was that they bore false witness. They lied.
I interpreted that sentence, "They responded to my objections by saying that the speakers do a good job of preaching against evolution, and that the incorrect statements about science don't matter very much in that big picture.", as his pastors condoning lying so long as it "served the Lord".
And my understanding of Christian doctrine is that the only Christian deity served by lies is Satan.
BTW, Carl Drews was an engineer. Years later I saw him in an industry journal where he was working on a model to explain the Parting of the Red Sea.
3.
You incorrectly claimed that a cat evolving into a dog would be an example of evolution. It isn't, plus it would take many human lifetimes for a new species to evolve from cats (and it wouldn't be a dog).
Indeed, a new species to evolve from cats would still be cats.
But I think part of creationists' confusion is that they assume that existing species (or "kinds" depending on how they're waving their hands at that moment) are the only ones that will ever exist. That is clearly wrong, since the new species that current species will evolve into do not exist yet.
So basically they're trying to foist their own false and faulty assumptions onto science (eg, a fixed set of "basic created kinds" that have all existed from the beginning and to which no new kinds will be added later). For that matter, their "model" for the evolution of a new species is for a completely different individual of that new species suddenly appearing in a single generation (and "having to wait another million years for a mate to also evolve in that same manner"); as I've seen creationists' false idea about speciation described: "A snake laid an egg and a bird hatched from it."
One prime example of a "new kind" coming into existence is the "basic bird kind". What actually happened was that a particular branch of therapod dinosaurs, coelosaurs, gave rise to birds. Hence not only did a new "basic kind" come into existence, but it is still part of its parent dinosaurian kind.
That entire idea must make creationists' brains melt, so they apparently try to maintain that the "basic bird kind" already existed long before it finally came into existence.
No wonder creationists refuse to ever explain what they think! They cannot even keep any of it straight!
5. You claimed Mount St. Helen's deposited many layers of strata. But it's a fairly typical volcano that did what many very active volcanos do, deposit a great deal of lava and ash, not "numerous levels of strata."
About six years ago in Message 315 of the topic, Glenn Morton's Evidence Examined, I posted a link to a very informative page by the late Glenn R. Morton (said page is in the Way Back Machine web archive): Young-Earth Arguments: A Second Look.
That page covers a number of topics:
  • Are Radioactive Dates Wrong? Woodmorappe quotemined through the scientific literature for bad dates. Morton points out that not only do they still track the right date, but a bad date is more likely to be too young instead of too old. Plus the dates aren't off enough to support a 6000-year-old-earth.
  • Varves. Creationist alternative explanations for varves do not match the varves we actually find.
  • Pollen in the varves.
  • Carbon 14 and Varves.
  • Buried River Channel.
  • THE SHRINKING SUN. Includes good graph of a wide range of measurements made, such that a creationist arguing for the "shrinking sun" would have to cherry-pick most of them out of existence. If anything, the sun is slowly increasing in size. I carry the graph on my phone.
  • Supernova 1987A proves the speed of light has been constant for 170,000 years.
  • 10 years of Root Growth from 7,000 feet down. So that buried layer not only had life growing on it in the past, but they had been living there for at least 10 years.
For that second one, Morton posted two photos of "varving" side-by-side. On the right are standard seasonal varves, nice and tightly differentiated. On the left are varve-like structures produced rapidly through turpidity currents, exactly like what happened at Mount St. Helen's. Even non-geologists can clearly see the difference.
1. You have yet to describe evolution accurately. You can't disprove what you don't understand.
The issue is not about him describing evolution accurately. Rather, he needs to tell us what he thinks evolution is. IOW, what does he think he's fighting against, because without that knowledge we have no way of deciphering his claims.
And, yes, the only way he would ever have any chance of disproving evolution would require him to understand what evolution actually is. Which he doesn't. Instead, all he can do is to waste his time and energy and generate high levels of disgust at his silly religion (not to be confused with actual Christianity).
And now you're on to Noah's flood? That's geology, not biology. It's bad enough that you drifted into biology in a cosmology thread, but it seems you can't stick to a single topic.
Yes, that's what creationists do: always present a moving target (by constantly changing the subject) while hiding behind a smokescreen of confusion.
However, there's also that unresolved matter of just what they think that evolution is. We know that evolution is just part of biology, like gravity and momentum are parts of physics, but creationists seem to think that evolution is some kind of grand over-arching worldview (just remember eWolf's blathering about "the evolution worldview" which he absolutely refused to describe to us, typical creationist).
So while we know better, creationists are taught that evolution extends far beyond biology into geology, cosmology, abiogenesis, etc. While we rightfully see him as moving away from any discussion of evolution, he apparently thinks that it's all evolution.
But of course he refuses to reveal anything concerning what he thinks evolution is.
Typical creationist!
fails because many species can form hybrids with others, resulting in a sort of "miscegenation between kinds" that the Bible should definitely speak out against. Besides, their "microevolution" smokescreen requires interfertility within a "kind", which causes them even more problems.
Some equate it with the genus level

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Percy, posted 05-22-2022 6:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by jar, posted 05-23-2022 10:15 AM dwise1 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