Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,212 Year: 5,469/9,624 Month: 494/323 Week: 134/204 Day: 4/4 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussion on Creation article...
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 95 (328786)
07-04-2006 2:34 PM


More Fantasies!
So you all decided that the author of the article, Niednagel, is ignorant and you are the smart ones! Neid has only mentioned very few of the numerous examples of intellegent and flawless designs in nature that evolutionists can only respond to with their imaginary fantasies. Your replies might look brilliant but they are typical evolutionary tales and they still failed to properly explain how these intellegent systems evolved.
The other features of a platapus are all easily explained by converget evolution.
Convergent evolution? How? This is just a claim to make evolution simple and an attempt to make an imaginary expalanation of structures that evolution cannot explain. Also, it lacks evidence and scientific basis. Check this link:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_13.php
Not many birds? A quick Wikipedia search tells me that there's as many as 340 species of hummingbird, organized into two subfamilies.
You said it yourself, they are all species of hummingbird with their unique way of flight. The quesion asks how could this feature evolve from non-existance. Just writing the number of hummingbird species is not the answer.
In regards to bombadier beetles, there's hundreds of species of beetles with ealier versions of the bombadier mechanism. They don't, as a rule, tend to blow up.
They dont blow up because this is how they are intellegantly designed. Why dont you mention these species with the earlier version of the mechanism and give a proper scientific explanation of how it might have evolved and without imaginary tales.
those questions are not particularly important in evaluating the weight of the ToE. A scientific theory is not condemned simply because there are questions within the theory that cannot be fully answered.
In other words, ignore the details and stick to a dogmatic belief in evolution no matter how many opposing evidences you might face. If evolution is stuck on some details then how can you accept the bigger image? Other scientific theories can be demonstrated, experimented and proven. But evolution is more like a belief system rather than a clearly demonstrated and proven fact.
Since creationism, and intelligent design, don't explain anything, they fall far short of replacing the ToE.
Realy? Creationism is simple: There is intellegent design all over nature and has to be the product of an intellegent creator. But the ToE relies totally on blind and unconcious chances and mechanisms that can only provide and imaginary way of discarding the intellegent design in nature, but it fall far short of replacing intellegent design. And you call it a logical theory!!
Any one that has seen chameleons run up and down walls, trees, bushes, table legs and drainspouts knows that the Gecko is not unique. Lots of lizards climb.
It seems that you didnt realy understand the question. The article says: "scientists concluded that engineering a structure like the foot of a gecko is "beyond the limits of human technology." However, they hope that the "natural technology of gecko foot-hairs can provide biological inspiration for future design of a remarkable effective adhesive."" The question asks how this remarkable adhesive on the foot of the gecko could have evolved. Other lizards could climb! Sure, but how did this climbing ability originally came to be possessed by them? Can you provide a proper "scientific" explanation?
The Giraffe got it's brain and plumbing system just like it got its neck, in little steps and over a long period of time. And the giraffe is NOT the only such critter. There have been many such long necked critters. Ever see a picture of Brachiosaurus?
Just the claim that the "Giraffe got it's brain and plumbing system just like it got its neck over a long period of time" does not make it true because it is just a claim. So which feature evoleved first? the neck or the plumbing system because both have to exist at the same time in order for the giraffe to live and use its neck so the system does not accept a gradual evolution, unless you chose to be so irrational and make a claim such as "mutations are smart enough to produce both features at the same time and in perfect coordination and harmony". What mutation can improve the heart or give it double pressure to work so perfectly in the giraffe? Are there fossils of species that show a gradual evolution of long necks? The Brachiosaurus is a distinct species by itslef and not a transitional link. The whole system is clearly intellegenty designed and you can only provide unscientific and irrational claims regarding it that are totally based on your imagination.
Remember: the opposite of "this is impossible" is not "this actually occurred"; the opposite of "this is impossible" is "this is possible". Therefore, it is not necessary to know the actual details of the actual history to refute the argument by incredulity; all that is necessary is to explain why it is possible, to give a plausible explanation.
So that is a clear confession that you dont know the evolutionary history of most species but you are only guessing and assuming based on your biased and dogmatic belief in evolution. If you dont know the evolutionary history of a species than you dont have the right to claim that it has evolved in the first place. I can see that at least 95% of ToE is based on assumption and not on a clearly demonstrated and proven facts with evidence. No matter how nice it might look or how many detailed studies carried out to prove evolution, they are all initially based on imagination.
The metabolism is related to the size and the requirements for flight.
So what is your point? a chain of mutations reduced the size, increased the metabolism, provided high manuvearublility, rapid frequency of wing flapping, modified circulatory and respiratory systems to fit the bird's needs. That sound so irrational.
As for the fossils question, why do we need to? It's a bird, in every bone and every feather, and it doesn't have features that we don't see in other birds.
Why do you need a fossil evidence if your claims are based on imagination and not on evidence. YOu said the hummingbird has no fossils to show evolution, so why do you even claim that there is evolution?
So why have crocs remained the same for so long?
The answer is evolution, they have evolved to a state where they are perfectly developed for their environment
Needless to say, this is just another irrational and baseless claim. The fact that the croc shows no change for a long period of time is clearly an evidence that there was no evolution going on. there are thousands of species that show stasis (long periods of no change) and they provide a clear fact that there was no evolution. But evolutionists make such claims as the above to make them feel better and convince themselves that evoltuion is true despite the odds. Why do evolutionists not find evidence against their theory in the fossil record is because they interpret every counter-evidence in terms of evolution and they make their own imaginary and speculative interpretations based on their preconceptions instead of admitting the evidences against their theory.
Presumably the gecko ancestors slowly developed from using suction to using the weak nuclear force with an overlap in which they relied on both.
I dont need to remind you here but this is again "just a claim". Lizards have their own distinct and unique ways of climbing. If evolution was true and there were realy overlaps in between, we should see millions of lizards living demonstrating climbing abilities in between as an overlap. But you cannot bring two distinct species with their unique ways of climbing and a hollow gap in between them and claim that this is evolution.
The chemicals it uses occur in many other beetles, one as a metabolic by-product, the other as a noxious chemical to squirt over others.
Yes there are other beetles with theri own distinct defence mechanism but the bombardier bettle is the most remarkable. The fact that other beetles have defence mechanisms does not negate the argument. Can you provide and explanation of how this beetle aquired this defence or how these defence mechanism came to be in the first place? Or can you only provide tales and claims?
Slowly. Their high metabolism is a product of several factors
How can high metabolism evolve slowly and by a gradual change? Flight is a complex process that requires the perfectly designed and well coordinated sophisticated systems that involve special repiratory system with avian lungs, special circulatory system fit for flight, perfectly designed feathers, hollow bones, fully develped wings, and high metabolism other wise any of these systems missing the bird cannot fly and will be eliminated. If birds had time to try these systems before they are fully formed they will be all eliminated and birds will be extinct. A claim that mutations with their random and unconcious effects resulted in these remarkable systems is the most irrational. And how could a reptile aquire these systems that are not found in its gene pool in oreder to evolve into a bird and we know that mutations do not add brand new genes. Check this link and you will see that bird evolution is impossible:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_6.php
I thought that you would provide proper scientific and proven claims but you did not. As the author said in the article: "These are questions that some can imagine answers to, but such answers remain just that . . . imagination." And your answers are clearly imagination based on your biased and speculative reasoning and your dogmatic belief in evoluion. You have all ignored thses intellegently designed systems and claimed that they are the result of blind, random and unconcious natural effects, and that is ignorance. If you want to make strong replies you should counter a fact by counterfact and not by imagination. You did mention some facts in your posts and thats fine, but your biased reasoning and the way you put the facts together to represent an evolutionary model is all based on imagination. Before you all replied the author have already responded to your replies just by simply saying that all evolutionists' replies are all based on dogmatic belief in thier theory.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by CK, posted 07-04-2006 2:43 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 21 by subbie, posted 07-05-2006 10:03 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2006 11:52 PM mr_matrix has replied
 Message 79 by nator, posted 08-16-2006 6:44 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 86 by Parasomnium, posted 08-17-2006 6:32 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 95 (329449)
07-06-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
07-05-2006 11:52 PM


Re: More Fantasies by RAZD
Do you even consider this a reply? It is long but weak in contents. All you did was just rewriting the same irrational claims and stubbornly insisting that you are right. Im not making claims but just showing that YOU are making claims and assertions that are unproven. You brought up many features about living things and just covered each one with a simple claim: "it has evolved" and thats it! Well, How? It is you who is making claims about evolution.
Duckbills have evolved in several species - dinosaurs, ducks, platypus, even fish. The reasons for the development are the same (food), the way they get there is different. That is what convergent evolution is about.
I have already posted tis link:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_13.php
It shows you why convergent evolution is more like a fantasy rather than a scientific approach. It is just a claim to "sweep counter-evidence under the carpet" rather than trying to explain it. When evolutionists see many examples of analogous structures they just cover them simply by saying "convergent evolution". Do you know that when Australia seperated from the rest of the world there were no wolves or many other marsupials at that time, so how did Australia come to possess wolves and other marsupials just as the rest of the world? Convergent evolution "might" explain analogous structures but there is no such thing as analogous "species". Moreover, the human eye and the squid's eye have striking similarity even though there is no evolutionary relation between the two, just saying convergent evolution does not expalain it. Non of the alleged examples of convergent evolution has a scientific evidence. Do not reply right away without ckecking the link above.
What is unique about hummingbird flight?
Maybe you should do more research about the topic. Hummingbirds can generate vertical lift wich allows them to remain stationary in the air just by very rapid wing flapping. The design of the helicopter is based on the design in the hummingbird's flight. And you say there is no design in nature!!!
Can you demonstrate exactly how this "intelligent design" process occurred? How was it effected? What is the evidence? Just claiming a result with no evidence to validate it is not science, it is fantasy.
Is this supposed to be a joke or some ignorant question? This runs parallel to the logic: "if you find a planet in space written on it -made by God- than I will believe in God". This stems form your lack of seeing the intellegent design or simply from ignoring it. YOu want evidence for intellegent design? simple, its all around you. Are you asking me to demonstrate how the intellegent creation process occured? Then I can only wonder about your ignorance level. Should we make a time-machine and use it to go back in time to see how God did it? We do not have creation power similar to that of God in order for us to demonstrate intellegent design. The most complex machines that humans make are not even close to the vast complexity of living things. In additon, many human-made designs are based on the already-existing design in nature. All you need is to see examples of intellegent design and a little wisdom to conclude that there must be an intellegent creator. You all know that there is intellegence and great designs in nature and in the universe, and even in your bodies and in every single cell. But denying the existence of a creator is no more ignorant than denying the existence of an author after reading his book. Now I ask you, can any evolutionist demonstrate any evolutionary process by turning a species into another completely different species?
The existence of unanswered questions is not falsification of any theory, they are just unanswered questions. Expecting all answers is a matter for faith in fairytales not science, science is content to say "we don't know this today" and wait for new evidence.
Assuming that "we don't know today" means "GOD-DID-IT" is IDiocy, a leap of faith illogical conclusion.
Your objection to creation is the product of your lack of understanding about the nature of creation. Creation in not about substituting science with religion, It is about learning science and aquiring more knowledge in order for us to better appreciate the intellegent creation and the supperior wisdom of our creator, and that does not oppose science. The fantasy of evolution that denies the creator and calims that life originated by random chances and blind natural effects is what truely opposes scinece and logic. If not all questions are answered in a theory than thats fine, but evolution is full of unanswered questions that are just covered by simply saying: "it has evolved" (if you dont believe me then try making an evolutioanry scenario and you will see a great deal of imagination involved with no evidence)in addition to thousands of other unproven claims and assertions. There is not a single postitive evidence for evolution but there are only speculative interpretations based on similarities in living things despite the fact that similarites alone are not evidence for evolution. But they are evidence of a common creator.
As for the evidence of "intelligent design all over nature" this sure incorporates a lot of BAD design that has to be the product of a BAD designer (what proportion of designs are SO bad that they are now extinct? 99%? 99.9%? 99.99%?)
Bad design? There is not a single example of bad design in nature that destroys and not benefits organisms. Many species have gone extinct is because of natural and environmental effects and not because they are poorly designed. It is realy hard for me to understand why can you not see this intellegent design. Im sure you can see it but you have to ignore it because you have unconditionally surrendered to the evolution dogma.
similar climbing ability is seen at different levels in different lizards. Thus evolution of climbing ability is entirely possible. What makes the gecko superior? Well for one thing, when you make such a comparison no matter what feature you are using, one species has to come out better at it than the others. Claiming this is something fantastic is known as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Many species have evolved ways of doing things that humans have not figured out yet, (strength of spider silk, the glue of barnacles, etc) what's so special about that?
See! you keep saying "it has evolved" without any evidence. Evolution is full of such unproven claims. Just saying "it has evolved" does not make it true. This is just a form of propaganda to make you feel that evolution is true despite the lack of evidence. And you still didnt explain how the gecko's remarkable adhesive might have evolved? If you can only provide more fantasies and unproved claims then dont bother replying.
You have also mentioned other examples of intellegent design by your self (the spider silk and the glue of branches).
Here are very few of the numerous examples of intellegent design:
-The design in helicopters is based on the design in hummingbird's flight.
-The design in airplanes is based on the design in birds aerodynamic bodies.
-The design of submarines is based on the design of fish's buoyancy
-The design of the Effile tower's structure in Paris is based on the disign of the bone.
....etc
Some of the most dignificant man-made designs are based on the already-existing design in nature. After all that you say there is bad design in nature!!!!
What can stop it from evolving slowly and by gradual change?
What can stop it? Simple, reptiles do not have the genes that code for these flight systems in birds, mutations do not provide them with brand new genes, nor are mutations smart enough to create such a complex and perfectly designed flight system. How can you have a gradual change in the bird's flight systems? For example, the design in the avian lung, it is impossible to have a normal lung of a reptile evolve into an avian lung because there cannot be an intermediary system in between. The entire design of the avian lung refutes evolution and there is not a single scenario put forward to try and explain it. Do not reply here right away without checking this link and you will see why:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_6.php
If you cannot prove that birds have evolved in the first place, then it is completely irrational and pointless to make up other fatasies about evolution of other bird features.
As I said above, just repeating the same unproven claims doesnot prove them. Im not making up my own claims but just pointing out your claims. If you think that I am ignorant about evolution then you are very wrong because I know enough about it, but I also know more than enough evidence against it. The only thing I dont understand is the dogmatic reasoning of evolutionists and what makes them reject the fact of creation. I can clearly see the type of logic behind your claims and why they are wrong and thats what I am trying to point out. But if you fail to see the logic about creation than it is your problem. Instead of making ignorant objections to creation try to provide a clear evidence against it if you can. As long as there is intelligent design in the universe then there must be an intelligent and a wise creator, and no one can provide evidence agaist the existence of God. This is not the only evidence I have to prove the existing of God, but I dont want to go more into religious topics, so lets just stay with evolution.
Note: do not just reply to few scentece fragments but reply to the entire idea of each paragraph.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 07-05-2006 11:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nwr, posted 07-06-2006 6:21 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2006 10:30 PM mr_matrix has replied
 Message 28 by Coragyps, posted 07-06-2006 11:06 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 95 (331191)
07-12-2006 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
07-06-2006 10:30 PM


Re: More Fallacies by RAZD
ALL you are making is claims. You have not SHOWN anything, except a capacity for argument from incredulity and ignorance.
What you call ignorance is creation logic that you do not understand. If creation logic does not meet with your evolutionist logic then it is a matter of disagreement and not ignorance. Therefore, you have no right to claim that creationists are ignorant, prticularly when you are the one who filled his posts with evolution fantasies. I have not seen a single evidence to your claims. All you did is bringing facts together to form an evolutionary model with your evolutionist biased reasoning. Because you couldnt counter with supporting evidence you have stated the following:
Nor am I claiming "proof" in my answers, (1) because proof is not possible in science, and (2) because it is not necessary to refute your unsubstantiated claims - all that is necessary is to demonstrate that it is possible.
This means that all your claims are based on mostly imagination and no proofs. A scientific scenrio with no proof is no more important than a fantasy tale. You have made some scenarios regarding a species and at the same time some other evolutionists somewhere in the world will make their own speculative scenarios regarding the same speices. Therefore, evolution is full of speculations based on some individuals preconceptions. Since all evolutionist scenarios are possibilities and not facts, their accuracy is also a probability and therefore, it would be foolish to have an absolute belief in them as a definite fact that substitute creation. This gives evolution a weak basis and does not provide any scientific proof to it. No wonder why evolutionists counter every difficult question to their theory with an imaginary scenario.
evolution happens, it has been observed, it has been documented, it is so well observed and documented that creationists cannot argue the point anymore (other than to apply the strawman of micro\macro).
What evolutionists consider observations of evolution is no more than observing micro changes. However, these minor changes cannot lead to the formation of entirely new species not even in many centuries. There is no law in nature that allows a species to turn into other species because all species are distinct and have their own gene pools. Micro changes in a population swing back and forth like a pendelum and do not flow in one direction to evolve species. If evolution is true, why dont you mention the latest species formed during the past few years so we can see evolution?
Note that mentioning few newly discovered species is not the answer, because they are newly discovered by us and not newly evolved.
I have already posted tis link:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_13.php
It shows you why convergent evolution is more like a fantasy rather than a scientific approach.
I know you posted it. I looked at it and wondered how anyone could think it had any valid information
Just turning your back on the link and saying that it is ignorant doesnot make it true. The article is based on true facts based on real sources and everything is well referenced. In addition to many quotes by many scientists and even evolutionists. The point of the article is to show the invalid logic behind convergent evolution and that it is just a fantasy. Nature is full of examples of homoplasy (analogous features) that give evolutionists a hard time in explaining their origin. This high degree of homoplasy in living things obscures the evolutionary phylogenic diagrams. Therefore they can only afford saying two words: "convergent evolution" and no scientific supporting evidence.
It is the differences rather than the similarities that show convergent evolution
I know this, but the question is how two or more totally different species that are not related to each other can possess very similar features? I can clearly see that this is an evidence of common design not convergent evolution fanatasy that has no scientific value or evidence. This is a quote from the link above that is made by evolutionist Frans de Waal:
"One big question concerns convergent evolution-the finding that life comes up with remarkably similar solutions to the same problem more than once. The camera eye is a good example. What is it that makes life navigate towards particular solutions? Is there a deeper pattern or set of principles at work, some kind of underlying "landscape" across which life is forced to move?"(reference in the linked article)
If the article is full of misinformation as you say, then why dont you check the quotes in it like this one.
The Tasmanian "wolf" had a pouch and was a marsupial and not a wolf at all. The shape of the head is similar but not identical, and there are significant differences that tell a thorough investigator that they are indeed different taxons. Why does your website show only the top of the skull when the whole skeleton is readily available for both animals?
There are differences between marsupials and placentals, but there are striking more similarities. Evolutionists say this is example of convergent evolution but how? Tazmenian wolves behave just like normal wolves (with few differences) they are still carnivores that run and hunt animals exactly just like other wolves (hunting is not the only similarity). Even though there is slight difference in locomotion, but they still resemble placental wolves in striking similarity (even in the shape of the skull), just making a fuss about few differences and elaborating on them does not make the two wolves totally different from each other. Similarly, other marsupial animals (monkeys, squirels, bears...etc) behave in strikigly similar manner to that of the placental counterparts despite some physiological differences. The question here is how? Did Australia meet very similar chances and mutations to evolve similar species to other continents just from one ancestral marsupial? What we see here is examples of NOT analogous features, but rather, analogous "species". There is no such thing as analogous species in evolution but they do exist in nature (i.e. marsupials and placentals). You cannot also claim that the animals existed on both continents before they seperated becuase this would not be an example of convergence. Also, most of todays marsupials didnot exists at the time of seperation, this is what the fossil record say.
As to helicopters being designed based on hummers that is patently false. NO hummingbird has rotating wings on top of their bodies, just for starters. A helicopter is just a plane with a big propeller on top and very little wing.
Rotating wings on top of the body? This is pure incrudility and misunderstanding of the argument. How about a simple lesson in aerodynamics for beginners? In any airplane we find wings, whether it is the old Wright brothers' plane or modern ones. Why is there wings? Simple, wings are there to generate lift. The wings are slanted so that the air above the wing flows faster that below it. This creates a difference of pressure which lifts the airplane upwards and make it fly. Where did this idea of wings originally come from? From BIRDS, from the already existing aerodynamic design in birds. Non of the sites you searched will say this because it is implied common sense and everyone knows that birds have wings and aerodynamic disign (do you know that as well?). So if you deny that airplanes are based on birds then you might as well deny that birds have wings.
Now in regard to helicopters, they fly in different way than normal airplanes. In a normal plane, the air flows horizontally but in copters it flows vertically allowing it to hover and rise vertically. This feature already exists in hummingbirds as well as other insects. The majority of birds use horizontal air flow to generate lift, while the hummingbird uses its rapid wing flapping back and forth to generate vertical lift This is one of the factors that make its flight unique (You can check hummingbirds in wikipedia to see other features of hummingbirds). A helicopter's propellor performs the same function except that it rotates in a cycle while hummingbirds use their high metabolism to make a rapid wing flapping in the shape of 8 to generate the vertical lift. The helicopter design is borrowed from the alredy existing design of vertical lift that is found in hummingbirds and other insects.
There is intellegent design in many species and systems in nature. There is too mush design to be ignored. In any designed system there must be a designer, this is an evident fact.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2006 10:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jazzns, posted 07-12-2006 3:48 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 07-12-2006 4:38 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2006 11:19 PM mr_matrix has replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 95 (339229)
08-11-2006 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
07-12-2006 11:19 PM


Re: mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
I've been away from this site for a long time so i didnt notice the replys, now i came to make things more clear then i will be leaving again since im not very interested in long debates on this site. Anyway, back to the argument
I suppose you also have your own kind of math so that the time adds up correctly? 2+2= whatever I want it to
Everyone knows that 2+2=4 and there is no doubt about it. It does not need different logics to calculate this because 4 is a universal answer that everyone knows, so it would be better if you stop this humor and talk with more reason. Anyway, you cannot compare creation vs. evolution debate to something as simple as 2+2=4, because 4 is known to everyone and needs no debate, but cre vs. evo debate has two completely different opposing views, and therefore, two different results.
The wikipedia definition for logic you posted is cpmpletely unecessary since i dont need you to teach me what logic is. The last thing i would need is to learn logic from an evolutionist who believes in something as illogical as coincidences and blind chances fomring the marvelous design of the cell and giving rise for life on Earth.
There is logic and delusion, ok. But as simple as you can claim that you have logic and i have delusion, i can as simply claim the opposite. YOu have brought this wikipedia definition of logic just to show off and pretend that you know the most about logic.
Notice that the best you can get is an indication that the theory CAN be true. The more a theory is tested the stronger that sense of CAN be true become, but it never becomes MUST be true: that requires absolute proof
Statements like this show the evolutionists' desperation to absolutely prove their theory, so they just make themselves feel better by saying: "there is no definte proof but there are indications to the theory" but these indications are also debatable. By saying the statement above you have weakened your side and clearly showed for the hundredth time that you lack evidence, and evolutionists try to cover their lack of evidence by saying such things. Other accepted scienetific theories have been absolutely proven so why not evolution as well, is it becuase evolution is not scientific? The answer is YES, as long as there is no absolute scientific proof as YOU said.
Keeping all this in mind, we can clearly see that evolution is based on possiblities and not on definite evidence. Then why do evolutionists all over the media try to portray their possiblity-based thoery as a universal fact and those who oppose it as ignorants? A person is an ignorant if he opposes a known fact, but if he opposes a possiblity then he cannot be described as ignorant. Therefore evolutionists should quit giving the illusion that their theory is absolutely proven and should be more open to criticism in their publications.
Thus if you claim evolution is a fantasy, you should be able to demonstrate that it CAN'T be true. Making fantasy claims does not do that.
Sure, if there are indications that evolution can be true, there are evidences (not indications) that it CANNOT be true. These evidences have been brought up millions of times: the Cambrian explosion and the sudden emergence of species, the gaps in the fossil record and the lack of transitional forms, the destructive effects of mutations and the myth of "benificial mutations", the impossiblity of a cell being formed by blind chance or a chain of coincidences forming a giant and marvelously designed data bank known as the DNA,.... and so on. I have also seen the evolutionists responses to these topics: they only consisted of fantasies and making up of imaginary scenarios (not definite facts) to oppose these evidences. For example, Eldrege and Gould made up their theory of puctuated equilibrium which was a desperate imaginary reply to the Cambrian explosion and the lack of transsitional forms.'
Your theory of evolution is a possiblity and if you want to make it true you should find evidence that make it an absloute fact and not attempt to turn the table and ask others to prove it wrong as long as it is not absolutely proven right in the first place.
Because you are ignorant of the facts does not change them or make them go away. Note that AiG acknowledges that speciation occurs, as they concede that the evidence is too overwhelming to ignore or try to hand wave away
Ok! since i am ignorant of the facts why dont you enlighten me and give a list of the latest evolved species, instead of replying that "AiG acknowledges speciation"? Evolutionists continually repeat (like a parrot) that there is overwhelming evidence for speciation while many scientists see non of this "overwhelming" evidence. If the AiG made some observations of micro changes and cliam that in the future they would turn into macro changes then that is only speculative wishfull thinking and is completely invalid observation.
there are species that have evolved that could not have lived previously - consider the nylon eating bacteria: why\how would it eat nylon before that was invented?
You know, when the pizza was first made and people began eating it, that does not mean that they have evolved into special species known as "pizza-eating homosapiens". Just the superficial name of the bacteria does not make it a recently evolved species, it is still a bacteria and didnot evolve into a virus or a red blood cell, for instance. Obviously, this bacteria feeds on the polymers in nylon and can feed on other similar polymers in nature that dont have to be in nylon form.
It is obvious that you know of no examples of speciation except for this one which is completely invalid. Thats why you said "there are overwhelming examples of speciation and I will mention one" but you know none of these imaginary "overwhelming" examples, so you tried to give the fake impression thar there is speciation to make you (and the other evolutionists) feel better.
Your website only shows the view from one angle because they want you to think they are more similar than they really are: this - at best - is misrepresenting the evidence in order to fool the gullible.
I know that the website shows only the skull and not the entire skeleton. However, this is not intended to mislead, because we know that there are defferences in the skeleton but the article was focusing on the striking similarites in the shape of the skull. So how could this similarity come about by the so called "convergent" evolution? Just making a fuss about the differences like you did doesnot make the similarities disappear, they are still there and you can only GUESS and SPECULATE about their origin without showing any valid and strong scientific proof.
The definition of homoplasy, btw, is:
ho·mo·pla·sy n.
Correspondence between parts or organs arising from evolutionary convergence.
This definitioin of homoplasy is agian one of your misleading symbols in attempting to give life to evolution, but you cannot provide evidence for the definition or whatsoever. There is homoplasy that everyone can see, but attributing it to evolution is completely spculative, invalid, and lacks any supporting evidence.
I notice it doesn't give de Waal's answer to the question he posed. Did you look up the reference to see the actual quote? How about you find the quote from Frans de Waal with the rest of what he says and post that instead of the quote mined snippet? (And btw, quote mining is another form of misrepresentation - making people appear to say things they are not saying.)
There is no undermining since there is no valid reply to the question. DeWaal was only amazed at the great homoplasy he finds and he and other evolutionists could only afford saying "convergent evolution" again with a huge lack of evidence. This is the answer to the question that you're looking for.
Look at the pictures of what these animals look like and you will see more resemblance to an opossum than a monkey or squirrel. The Koala is also not at all like a bear.
I do have a picture, this site was posted earlier by 'nwr':
Marsupial Evolution and Post Flood Migration
Now do you see the strking similarity in wolves, ant-eaters, flying squirrels, mice, moles,...etc. And the bear im talking about is not the koala as you had it wrong, but the sloth. Now the question is: how did Australia come to possess such similar counterparts to the placentals? This is a clear example of "analogous" species, not just analogous structures. Of course you will not accept this fact because there is no such this in evolution and analogous species, but they do exist in nature. Making a long list of some differences does not change the fact.
Rotating wings on top of the body? This is pure incrudility and misunderstanding of the argument.
You were the one that said that the helicopter was designed based on the hummingbird. The helicopter has a rotating set of wings, not flapping ones.
Obviously, I never said that "helicopters are based on hummingbirds that have wings rotating on top of the body", it is you who brought up this false statment and misunderstood what I said. Maybe you were trying to show some humor, however, its no funny!
The design of the helicopter is based on the design in the hummingbird's flight.
I'm glad you realize that this was an erroneous statement: what you say now contradicts that.
There is no contradiction at all, you only douldnt find something reasonable to say so you made up this contradiction in your mind and refute it to show a fake impression that you refuted my whole argument. I said this from the beginning: the way that helicopters fly is borrowed from the alredy "designed" flight of the hummingbird. And I elaborated on that in the next post. The only contradiction here is the one in your mind.
The first designs people used to try to fly were copies of the wings of birds - model something that works. They failed.
They failed not because the design in nature is bad, otherwise birds would never be able to fly if they were badly designed as you claim. But they failed becuase no human intellgence can design systems as marvelous as those in nature.
The helicopter blades rotate in a horizontal (normally for lift) direction -- they are passing horizontally through the air to generate lift in exactly the same way as if the air was flowing horizontally over wings.
I dont know where you got that from but its Wrong! Helicopters generate vertical air currnent, thats why they can fly upward right away without havind to move on land first like normal airplanes. The only horizontal current is when the already "vertical current" in the propellor is slanted towards the front so that the helicopter can fly forward. The hummingbird also relys on vertical air current and not on horizontal like other bird.
The reason that birds and airplane wings both conform to aerodynamics is because of aerodynamics not because of any necessary design: that is the way flight works best.
Obviously, this is a complete fallacy that ignores an important truth: airplanes conform aerodynamics because this is how they are desinged by humans and did not come about by chance, so if birds and insects conform aerodynamics as well and in even better ways than airplanes, then who designed them?
THe designer is God that you and other athiests try to desperately ignore. You can run away but you cannot hide the truth by fallacies and speculative mind. YOu also failed to give examples of bad design in nature (because no such thing exists).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2006 11:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Nighttrain, posted 08-12-2006 5:05 AM mr_matrix has replied
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-12-2006 5:18 AM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 59 by Theus, posted 08-13-2006 11:52 AM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 60 by kalimero, posted 08-14-2006 4:04 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 08-15-2006 10:27 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 95 (340312)
08-15-2006 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Nighttrain
08-12-2006 5:05 AM


Bad design is a myth
Evolutionists are not willing to admit that there is intellegent design in nature even though it is very obvious, this is because accepting design means accepting that there is a designer. Even worst, some evolutionists go as far as to make a very strange claim: "There is BAD design in nature"!!!!!!!! Since evolution relies on random mutations, blind coincidences, and unconcious nature, there should be some examples of bad and lousy design. But when we see excellent and intellegent design in nature (and there are many examples of it), this alone invalidates evolution and proves creation. Therefore, evolutionists desperately attempt to point out some strange examples of the so-called "bad design" such as this one:
So the millions of children that suffer and die each year from God-created diseases are part of the Grand Design? The parasites that cripple and blind us were designed from the start? The bacteria and viri we fight should be allowed to run their course because the ID wants it that way? Sounds like the sickest God I ever heard of.
Obviously, this is a very invalid example and you cannot consider deseases an mutations as bad design. Just what do you want God to do in order for you to admit intellegent design? Create a life for humans with absolutely no diseases, no body gets tired or hurt, nobody experiences unfortunate events, nobody dies and everyone is immortal and lives forever in a happy utopia?!! This kind of perfect life is only in paradise and not in the worldy life. This life is intentionally designed with some difficulties and harsh conditions, and diseases are part of these difficulties and they do not constitute examples of bad design. I am sure that you still wont understand what Im saying since you dont believe in God in the first plance.
By the way, you still failed to give examples of bad design. Even viruses/bacteria/microbes have intellegently designed structures and even behaviours. Take the virus for example, it does not have a brain and it is not even a cell, it is a programed genetic material protected by a coating protein capsul that is designed to inject it into a host cell. Where did the virus get intellgence that allows it to capture a cell's replication machinary and create other viruses? If you want examples of bad design, you should look for designs in nature that fail because of their design or do not function at all.
Since you are trying to desperately find examples of bad design, I'll give you and example of intellegent design to think about: The Avian lungs of birds. Unlike normal lungs of land animals, the avian lung is designed to have a unidirectional air flow where air enters from one end and exits from another in addition to additional air sacs. This design provides the bird with a 24 hours oxygen supply to satisfy its high motabolism that is also designed for flight. Chseck this sight for information about the avian lung:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_6.php
How does evolution accout for the avian lungs? Keeping in mind that a gradual evolution of lungs (particularly from normal to avian) is impossible becuase there cannot be an intermediary in between the two nor is there an example of such a "transitional" lung. The sight above contains many interesting quotes such as:
"The important thing is that the reptile lung, with its bidirectional air flow, could not have evolved into the bird lung with its unidirectional flow, because it is not possible for there to have been an intermediate model between them. In order for a creature to live, it has to keep breathing, and a reversal of the structure of its lungs with a change of design would inevitably end in death. According to evolution, this change must happen gradually over millions of years, whereas a creature whose lungs do not work will die within a few minutes."
Another nice quote by Michael Denton:
"Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of an organism to the extent that the slightest malfunction leads to death within minutes. Just as the feather cannot function as an organ of flight until the hooks and barbules are coadapted to fit together perfectly, so the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner."
Another interesting quote by Denton is this:
The avian lung brings us very close to answering Darwin's challenge: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
I have posted this link in a previous post but non of the evolutionists replied. So if you can reply make sure you read the entire article first and do not ignore it. In addition, think about it if you are an open-minded science person and do not close your eyes on the facts and say "No,no,no... evolution must be true!" In addition, any evolutionist should reply to the challanges proposed by the scientists in the article and not to me only and then say "I have refuted creation". If you can only speculate and make up imaginary scenarios then dont bother replying because it is a waste of time to read fantasies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Nighttrain, posted 08-12-2006 5:05 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ringo, posted 08-15-2006 2:48 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-15-2006 3:52 PM mr_matrix has replied
 Message 71 by Nighttrain, posted 08-15-2006 9:51 PM mr_matrix has not replied

  
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 95 (340362)
08-15-2006 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Adequate
08-15-2006 3:52 PM


I dont realy consider this a strong reply. YOu did not refute any of my arguments but you only insisted on your opinions. In addition, All of these latest replies have only picked few quotes from me and not replied to all of the arguments, nor did I see strong replies. Just look at your replies:
But you do not "observe intellegent design in nature", do you? What we observe in nature is mutation and selection, not miraculous fiat creation of species.
It is not a good tactic to misunderstand my argument and reply to the misunderstood argument. This is known as "Straw man". Obviously I never said that we observe flat creation in nature since this creation has been done long ago. I always say that we see countless examples of intellegent "design" and not present tence "designing". ID refers to systems in nature that are alredy designed and points out the intellegence involved in their design and it is not about observing the creatioin process. I have pointed this out before but evolutionists refuse to understand and continue their straw men.
Now I ask you, have you (or any other evolutionist)ever observed a species turning to a different kind of species? Non of the evolutionists in these posts ever mentioned examples of newly evolved species.
Have it your way: the total malfunction of a system is not bad design, because God meant it to go wrong. So please tell us what sort of thing you would consider evidence of bad design, given that total failure doesn't fall into this category.
What I said about this topic in the previous post is not hard to understand. God does not create a perfect life on this world but only in paradise. But how can you understand if you dont even believe in God? I still ask you to show examples of bad designs in nature instead of asking me to show such examples since my answer is "non" because there is no bad design in nature.
Okay then, the tail of a human embryo. What function does it serve?
Do you mean the spinal cord in its first stages of development before the development of legs given it a shape of a tail?
Lets say that it is a tail, where is the bad design? If there is realy a tail we should all be born with functionless tails, but there is no such thing because it is a spinal cord that finishes debelopment in later stages.
How does evolution accout for the avian lungs?
It should be pointed out that studies of the foramina of dinosaurs strongly suggest that they had a similar arrangement.
But you did not answer the question. How does evolution accout for avian lungs? I bet that you didn't even read the article I posted nor did you pay attention to the quotes I included in the previous post. As I said, ignoring the article and replying to me right away is not sufficient. Just saying: "other dinasaurs have avian lungs" is not a reply to the article. In addition, there isn't even a strong proof that they did. If you just mention species that have avian lungs (i.e. hummingbird, ostriches, hawks) that does not make you cross over the evolution of avian lungs impasse. Are there any examples of intermediary lungs between normal and avian in some living species? How can normal lung turn avian? Here is another quote from the same article:
Just how such a different respiratory system could have evolved gradually from the standard vertebrate design without some sort of direction is, again, very difficult to envisage, especially bearing in mind that the maintenance of respiratory function is absolutely vital to the life of the organism. Moreover, the unique function and form of the avian lung necessitates a number of additional unique adaptations during avian development. As H. R. Dunker, one of the world's authorities in this field, explains, because first, the avian lung is fixed rigidly to the body wall and cannot therefore expand in volume and, second, because of the small diameter of the lung capillaries and the resulting high surface tension of any liquid within them, the avian lung cannot be inflated out of a collapsed state as happens in all other vertebrates after birth. The air capillaries are never collapsed as are the alveoli of other vertebrate species; rather, as they grow into the lung tissue, the parabronchi are from the beginning open tubes filled with either air or fluid.
(http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_6.php)
How can the avian lung evolve from a normal lung? Any evolutionist willing to explain? Who can respond to the article linked above with a detailed scientific reply that explicitely shows the possiblity of such lung evolution and not a 100% imaginary scenario? Are there any species demonstrating intermediary lungs? Again, dont just reply to me and be happy about it, but reply to the article if you can and with no imagination.
Just watch how many coming replies will focus on the disease and bad design rather than my previous two posts that still did not see a strong "scientific" reply, and how many will reply to insignificant scentence fragments and pretend to be tough... Typical straw man arguments!!!
Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-15-2006 3:52 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ringo, posted 08-15-2006 6:20 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 67 by Quetzal, posted 08-15-2006 6:47 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 68 by Quetzal, posted 08-15-2006 7:03 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 69 by Quetzal, posted 08-15-2006 9:04 PM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-16-2006 6:09 AM mr_matrix has not replied
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-16-2006 6:36 AM mr_matrix 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