|
Since: Mar 12
Dubai, UAE
|
Please wait...
Urban Cowboy wrote: <quoted text>
Again, no evidence. Just more hyperbole, childish ridicule, and ideological rhetoric. Through the magic of reversal and projection, you manage to turn YOUR confusion between the Big Bang and biological evolution into MY ideological rhetoric. Listen to yourself! That's all you've got. I fully understand what evolution is, I just don't see any evidence to support it. Then why do you have to drum up fake arguments to attack it? Living fossils are one example - its a fake argument, and its been shown to you why its false, and if you understood evolution you would not keep making such a fool of yourself about it. Why does it seem that every plant and animal that has ever existed as always been the same kind? Why is it that animals and plants show changes in the fossil record fully consistent with evolution but not with ex-nihilo creation at the same time. Still no mammals or flowering plants in the Cambrian. Rodents have always been rodents. Yet NO rodents or anything close to them have been found in rocks much over 100m years. For fifths of the entire column since the Cambrian is utterly devoid of them. Or flowering plants. Or birds. But we DO find creatures that would make good ancestors for all of these. I could go on to list every kind of plant and animal and look at the fossil record and that's exactly what I would find. That is a complete refutation of evolution. Go on then. Show us the Cambrian rodents. Or the Permian, Devonian, Orovician, or Triassic ones And the 2nd law of thermodynamics says organized complex things like cells and genetic codes become random over time - not the direct opposite. No, it does not say that, not even close, and it never did. It is now shown that when energy is applied to a system, the degree of randomness of the system moves toward the degree of randomness of the applied energy. When energy is applied in a manner more random that the system to which it is applied, the system's entropy increases. The energy supplied by the Sun to the earth is certainly more random than the high degree of organized complexity of even the simplest living cell. There is just no way. Sorry, but you simply do not have a CLUE of what you are talking about! Don't ask me not to ridicule this baloney. Suffice to say, that in an open energy flux localised reversals of entropy are perfectly normal and self-organising systems, including non-biological ones, are extremely common.
|
|
Since: Mar 12
Dubai, UAE
|
Please wait...
That is, "four fifths" of the column. No rodents.
|
|
Since: Mar 12
Dubai, UAE
|
Please wait...
Urban Cowboy wrote: <quoted text>
Again, no evidence. Just more hyperbole, childish ridicule, and ideological rhetoric. That's all you've got. I fully understand what evolution is, I just don't see any evidence to support it. That is the key. It's not supposed to be blind faith. Why does it seem that every plant and animal that has ever existed as always been the same kind? Rodents have always been rodents. Shrimp have always been shrimp. I could go on to list every kind of plant and animal and look at the fossil record and that's exactly what I would find. That is a complete refutation of evolution. Lots of microevolution is still microevolution and that also refutes evolution and supports creation. Then there's no genetic mechanism yet discovered that supports evolution. It supports microevolution but not macroevolution. Then there's all the fine tuning and all the beneficial symbiotic relationships. And irreducible complexity is as powerful as ever.
And the 2nd law of thermodynamics says organized complex things like cells and genetic codes become random over time - not the direct opposite. It is now shown that when energy is applied to a system, the degree of randomness of the system moves toward the degree of randomness of the applied energy. When energy is applied in a manner more random that the system to which it is applied, the system's entropy increases. The energy supplied by the Sun to the earth is certainly more random than the high degree of organized complexity of even the simplest living cell. There is just no way. Just goes to show. Scratch the surface of your pompous declarations of knowledge and all you get are ridiculous bromides.
|
|
“I am Sisyphus”
Since: Nov 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Urban Cowboy wrote: Why don't you just say when you are avoiding the question. It could not be any less obvious than the above.
|
|
“I am Sisyphus”
Since: Nov 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Urban Cowboy wrote: <quoted text>
No, you are changing the meaning of what I said. Find me a fossil of the modern species bison, i.e., American Buffalo from the 18th and 19th century, those hunted by plains indians and hunters to near extinction. The whole point being there were millions at one time but apparently no fossils remain.(Again, I am NOT referring to Pleistocene or ice age bison/post flood bison! This is no reason to provoke the darwinists! Again avoiding the question.
|
|
“I am Sisyphus”
Since: Nov 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Urban Cowboy wrote: <quoted text>
Evolution is the one who needs the magic! Big bang? Biogenesis? Macroevolution? These things are called science, not magic. Urban Cowboy wrote: <quoted text> Fine tuning? Borderland science Urban Cowboy wrote: <quoted text> Irreducible complexity? Pseudo science. Urban Cowboy wrote: <quoted text> A million other unexplained things? You don't even have a magician! These are not unexplained, they explain each other and that is one way we know they are valid (except IC which has been refuted)
|
|
“What, me worry?”
Since: Mar 09
I'm a racist caricature!
|
Please wait...
Urban Cowboy wrote: Based on their metabolism, they couldn't keep swimming or fighting or running fast for more than a few minutes. If you're trying to tell us that they'd be able to swim from China to Australia, that is a joke. What you're doing is showing us the fat guy sprinting or swimming leisurely in the pool, and then extrapolating that the fat guy is the next Michael Phelps.
|
|
“What, me worry?”
Since: Mar 09
I'm a racist caricature!
|
Please wait...
Urban Cowboy wrote: <quoted text>
I have heard all your arguments over and over many, many times and they are all impotent. I have dissected every bit of them. I have read over 100 books on the subject. I have listened to both sides for over 10 years nearly full time. Oh I understand alright. The only thing I am confused about is how you can be so entrenched as to not see how obviously wrong you are. You are like a bankrupt gambling addict. You have nothing left to bring to the table but are so desperate you are willing to do anything just to keep playing. Listen to some of the bizzare statements you are making. You don't have evidence so your latest ploy is to try and shame me into believing. How pitiful. Being wrong is not understanding. What understanding you want from me is conversion to your ideology but I'm sorry, it's just all wrong. It's bad science too. It's not even a choice. And I hate to break it to you PAL, but you're not going to get many converts by showing them a "300 million" year old shrimp, and saying, "See! it looks just like a modern shrimp thus confirming darwin's theory" That isn't going to work too good I'm afraid. LOL! Ohhhhhh...I get it. Ancient shrimp = modern shrimp, but Pleistocene bison != modern bison. That makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
“I am Sisyphus”
Since: Nov 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Urban Cowboy wrote: <quoted text>
I have heard all your arguments over and over many, many times and they are all impotent. I have dissected every bit of them. I have read over 100 books on the subject. I have listened to both sides for over 10 years nearly full time. Oh I understand alright. The only thing I am confused about is how you can be so entrenched as to not see how obviously wrong you are. You are like a bankrupt gambling addict. You have nothing left to bring to the table but are so desperate you are willing to do anything just to keep playing. Listen to some of the bizzare statements you are making. You don't have evidence so your latest ploy is to try and shame me into believing. How pitiful. Being wrong is not understanding. What understanding you want from me is conversion to your ideology but I'm sorry, it's just all wrong. It's bad science too. It's not even a choice. And I hate to break it to you PAL, but you're not going to get many converts by showing them a "300 million" year old shrimp, and saying, "See! it looks just like a modern shrimp thus confirming darwin's theory" That isn't going to work too good I'm afraid. LOL! You again avoided the point. The point is that you are lacking in scientific knowledge of the ToE and related science as evidenced by the dumb things you say in your posts.
|
|
“What, me worry?”
Since: Mar 09
I'm a racist caricature!
|
Please wait...
Urban Cowboy wrote: What does ^that^ have to do with this: LowellGuy wrote: <quoted text> Nonsense. Google "bison fossil" and then apologize for lying. <quoted text> creation.com/giant-egg-mystery Not impressed. There are fossils of lions on all the currently inhabited continents. There is no reason to think they didn't exist in Palestine. However, there are NO fossils of koalas anywhere except Australia. There is no reason to think they have existed anywhere else. <quoted text> Again: we have fossils of lions from EVERYWHERE ELSE. Meanwhile, we have fossils of koalas from only one place in the world. Do you seriously not understand the ramifications of the two scenarios?
|
|
“What, me worry?”
Since: Mar 09
I'm a racist caricature!
|
Please wait...
Urban Cowboy wrote: <quoted text>
No, you are changing the meaning of what I said. Find me a fossil of the modern species bison, i.e., American Buffalo from the 18th and 19th century, those hunted by plains indians and hunters to near extinction. The whole point being there were millions at one time but apparently no fossils remain.(Again, I am NOT referring to Pleistocene or ice age bison/post flood bison! This is no reason to provoke the darwinists! Ancient shrimp = modern shrimp Ancient bison != modern bison Get it, people? They're the same when it's convenient for Urb's little story, but as soon as it is inconvenient, they're completely different. Try to keep up, will ya?
|
|
“I am Sisyphus”
Since: Nov 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Urban Cowboy wrote: <quoted text>
Again, no evidence. Just more hyperbole, childish ridicule, and ideological rhetoric. That's all you've got. I fully understand what evolution is, I just don't see any evidence to support it. That is the key. It's not supposed to be blind faith. Why does it seem that every plant and animal that has ever existed as always been the same kind? Rodents have always been rodents. Shrimp have always been shrimp. I could go on to list every kind of plant and animal and look at the fossil record and that's exactly what I would find. That is a complete refutation of evolution. Lots of microevolution is still microevolution and that also refutes evolution and supports creation. Then there's no genetic mechanism yet discovered that supports evolution. It supports microevolution but not macroevolution. Then there's all the fine tuning and all the beneficial symbiotic relationships. And irreducible complexity is as powerful as ever.
And the 2nd law of thermodynamics says organized complex things like cells and genetic codes become random over time - not the direct opposite. It is now shown that when energy is applied to a system, the degree of randomness of the system moves toward the degree of randomness of the applied energy. When energy is applied in a manner more random that the system to which it is applied, the system's entropy increases. The energy supplied by the Sun to the earth is certainly more random than the high degree of organized complexity of even the simplest living cell. There is just no way. LOL thank you for proving beyond all doubt that you do not understand evolution, no any other aspect of science. How can I possibly avoid mocking you if you say such things.
|
|
“What, me worry?”
Since: Mar 09
I'm a racist caricature!
|
Please wait...
Urban Cowboy wrote: <quoted text>
Evolution is the one who needs the magic! Big bang? Biogenesis? Macroevolution? Fine tuning? Irreducible complexity? A million other unexplained things? You don't even have a magician! I didn't realize the theory of evolution addressed the origins of the universe. Remind us where in the theory this is addressed. That is, unless you're pulling a Kent Hovind and talking about the six types of evolution. But, someone who hadn't heard of Hovind surely wouldn't be doing that. No, I'm sure the theory of evolution actually talks about how the universe began. If you could just show us that part of the theory, please. Thanks pal!
|
|
“Macroevolution Never Happened”
Since: Aug 07
Duluth, GA
|
Please wait...
LowellGuy wrote: <quoted text>
I didn't realize the theory of evolution addressed the origins of the universe. Remind us where in the theory this is addressed. That is, unless you're pulling a Kent Hovind and talking about the six types of evolution. But, someone who hadn't heard of Hovind surely wouldn't be doing that. No, I'm sure the theory of evolution actually talks about how the universe began. If you could just show us that part of the theory, please. Thanks pal! The only thing I know about Hovind is what I've from the darwinists right here on this forum.
|
|
“Macroevolution Never Happened”
Since: Aug 07
Duluth, GA
|
Please wait...
Dogen wrote: <quoted text>
LOL thank you for proving beyond all doubt that you do not understand evolution, no any other aspect of science. How can I possibly avoid mocking you if you say such things. I know more about it than you do. So go on and mock, that's all you're really good for.
|
|
“Macroevolution Never Happened”
Since: Aug 07
Duluth, GA
|
Please wait...
LowellGuy wrote: <quoted text>
Ancient shrimp = modern shrimp
Ancient bison != modern bison
Get it, people? They're the same when it's convenient for Urb's little story, but as soon as it is inconvenient, they're completely different. Try to keep up, will ya? That fact that every living plant and animal that ever existed has always been the same kind is MUCH more convincing than saying we haven't found any of those in that particular rock layer (especially when you're not supposed to find any there so you're going to try real hard not to find any because that would mean you're are wasting your time and the whole theory was wrong all along and that mean you are a fool and it marks end of your livelyhood, so even if you do happen to find something out of place you certainly aren't going to show anyone). But the point being, finding or not finding a fossil in mud sediment (that always shows they've never changed) is a very weak argument. This is exactly what we should expect to find - that all the plants and animals have always been the same kind, because now that we know more about the genetic code and how the cell works, we can clearly see there is no mechanism for one kind to change into a different kind. It's all horizontal and no vertical; all downhill and no uphill; that's what the fossil record shows and thats what the modern science shows.
|
|
“Macroevolution Never Happened”
Since: Aug 07
Duluth, GA
|
Please wait...
Dogen wrote: <quoted text>
You again avoided the point. The point is that you are lacking in scientific knowledge of the ToE and related science as evidenced by the dumb things you say in your posts. As I recall from your previous visits to this forum, you've rarely, if ever, said anything factual or remotely scientific. You are a brain-dead pure darwin zombee. Oh and by the way, I didn't believe for one second what you said about your education. Your story was so inconsistent you piled one lie on top of another. I caught you in so many lies it was pathetic; I felt I had to ease off a little. After all, I'm not here to torture anyone. You should stop lying and start respecting others. Otherwise, you're going to have a hard life.
|
|
“Macroevolution Never Happened”
Since: Aug 07
Duluth, GA
|
Please wait...
LowellGuy wrote: <quoted text>
Based on their metabolism, they couldn't keep swimming or fighting or running fast for more than a few minutes. If you're trying to tell us that they'd be able to swim from China to Australia, that is a joke. What you're doing is showing us the fat guy sprinting or swimming leisurely in the pool, and then extrapolating that the fat guy is the next Michael Phelps. Just presenting the facts. Many animals can hybernate and go into suspended animation but can also be quite spunky. I'm sure you know that. Iceburgs float! Ice Age. There's a giant float of debree form Japan so this would have been common after the catastrophic flood. More possibilites. More and more. And regarding the uniqueness of the Koala, they have a very large cecum where symbiotic bacteria aid in digestion and very long large intenstines enhancing processing of fibrous, protein-poor eucalyptus leaves.(Biology, Campbell, 8th ed, page 871)
|
|
“Macroevolution Never Happened”
Since: Aug 07
Duluth, GA
|
Please wait...
Chimney1 wrote: <quoted text>
Yet more evidence that you do not understand evolution, but like other fundamentalist ignoramuses, lump everything you don't like into some common enemy "secular world view" or some such nonsensical foundation for your paranoia.
What have the Big Bang, abiogenesis, or fine tuning got to do with evolution? Answer: nothing.
What has irreducible complexity got to do with ANYTHING? Nothing. Its a failed project, both in principle, and in practice.
And what is macro evolution? Just a lot of micro-evolution. Childish name calling does not help your case.
|
|
“Think&Care”
Since: Oct 07
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Urban Cowboy wrote: <quoted text>
No, you are changing the meaning of what I said. Find me a fossil of the modern species bison, i.e., American Buffalo from the 18th and 19th century, those hunted by plains indians and hunters to near extinction. The whole point being there were millions at one time but apparently no fossils remain.(Again, I am NOT referring to Pleistocene or ice age bison/post flood bison! This is no reason to provoke the darwinists! Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Vol 19, No 1, pp 50-69 (1997), On Late Holocene Variability in Bison Populations in the Northeastern great Basin, by Karen Lupo and David Schmitt. KIVA, Vol 55, No 3, 1990, Bison Assemblages from the Sierra Blanca Region, Southeastern New Mexico, by Jonathan Driver. Both discuss multiple assemblages of Bison bison remains from the period *after* 1000 AD.
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Aquarius
