Evidence for Creation / against Evolution

[Baggins]

If you really believe that please explain why.
Why are the responses to your article (post #13 and post #16) incorrect?

Almost everything you have said seems to have been refuted and shown that what othes believe is in fact true. (or at least that what you believe is not true)

It seems that after having every one of his myriad points debagged conclusively by Mr Bandersnatch ( I believe it was ), he is going to bow out gracefully clutching the fig leaf of the Himalayan volcano infront of him to protect his modesty.

And so as yet another Creationist sails (dis)gracefully over the horizon clutching a shredded P.R.A.T.T. list to his chest we say thanks to all those who gave him a spanking

 

[shinbits]

Yes it affects the winds. That is why hurricanes rotate counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern. It especially affects the jetstream. However, it far the the major factor in wind velocity, especially in the lower atmosphere. Winds are mostly powered by the sun through latent heat of evaporation of water. This is why hurricanes form in summer and why water temps have such a big effect on the power of hurricanes. I really don't think you can show that hurricanes would be massively more powerfull if the earth were spinning fast enough for a 20 hour day rather than a 24 hour day.

Well, again, if you consider that fact that the suns mass was larger millions of years ago, inconjuction with a faster spinning earth, it isn't illogical to conclude that winds must've been much harsher then. In fact, to not conclude that would be somewhat illogical.

I will post more on this though, as someone here has already asked.

 

[shinbits]

ack!

Frum.........

What's up with having an understudy?

 

[futzman]

You are a very bitter 51 year old man.

I post my age to remind myself not to beat up on your youth. You have a lot to learn young one and it won't come through flapping your jaws all the time. If you would listen to the experts here (and there are a number of them) instead of constantly rebutting their facts with useless idiocy, you might learn something.

And, for the record, I am not bitter. I'm a pragmatist.

Futz

 

[futzman]

Well, again, if you consider that fact that the suns mass was larger millions of years ago, inconjuction with a faster spinning earth, it isn't illogical to conclude that winds must've been much harsher then. In fact, to not conclude that would be somewhat illogical.

I will post more on this though, as someone here has already asked.

Tell you what -- why don't you do the calculations and tell us how fast you think the average and maximum wind speeds were, oh, let's say 400 million years ago. Then we'll discuss this intelligently. How about it?

Futz

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well, again, if you consider that fact that the suns mass was larger millions of years ago, inconjuction with a faster spinning earth, it isn't illogical to conclude that winds must've been much harsher then.

It not the sun's mass but its energy output that is important. How much larger and how much higher was the energy output millions of years ago? Number please.

In fact, to not conclude that would be somewhat illogical.

How much harsher?

 

[shinbits]

Tell you what -- why don't you do the calculations and tell us how fast you think the average and maximum wind speeds were, oh, let's say 400 million years ago. Then we'll discuss this intelligently. How about it?

Futz

Well.....that's the least bitter thing u've said all day!

You've got a deal!

Just don't die before it post it.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I post my age to remind myself not to beat up on your youth.

Futz

From my perspective you are not so old.

 

[Jacquo]

Dear Ioinc and Baggins,

Please do not confuse silence (or lack of time to respond to each and every point) as meaning there is no response to be made to Dannager's points in his posts 13 and 16.

I have started to respond already and he has honestly recognised reading me out of context. His mention of volcanos was made (apparently) because he did not see that I was limiting my erosion argument to the himalayas.

Equally his response to my mention of the irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting mechanism of a giraffe he has ignored but gone on to other contexts. So that argument of mine goes on standing.

I have already responded to the abiogenesis matter.
So that also stands.

He mentioned the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud in response to the undiscussed age of comets argument. But sorry, just like the non-existent himalayan volcano, without co-ordinates for us to abserve such and thereby proof that such existence blocks or hinders the view to other galaxies, it is also thereby another figment of evolutionary imaginations I'm afraid.
So that stands.

Perhaps a little more patience and time and I will respond to more.

Regards,

Jac

 

[Baggins]

Dear Ioinc and Baggins,

Please do not confuse silence (or lack of time to respond to each and every point) as meaning there is no response to be made to Dannager's points in his posts 13 and 16.

I have started to respond already and he has honestly recognised reading me out of context. His mention of volcanos was made (apparently) because he did not see that I was limiting my erosion argument to the himalayas.

Equally his response to my mention of the irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting mechanism of a giraffe he has ignored but gone on to other contexts. So that argument of mine goes on standing.

I have already responded to the abiogenesis matter.
So that also stands.

He mentioned the Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud in response to the undiscussed age of comets argument. But sorry, just like the non-existent himalayan volcano, without co-ordinates for us to abserve such and thereby proof that such existence blocks or hinders the view to other galaxies, it is also thereby another figment of evolutionary imaginations I'm afraid.
So that stands.

Perhaps a little more patience and time and I will respond to more.

Regards,

Jac

So all we have to do is answer you questions about the irreducible complexity ( sic ) of the blood clotting system of a giraffe , and the age of comets and we are done with your list?

I don't understand what you mean about the abiogenesis matter. I assume this was some tiff about whether it has any bearing on the Theory of Evolution ( it doesn't ) or not.

So Blood clotting

from talk origins

1. The blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. There are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. There is also evidence that the genes for blood clotting (indeed, the whole genome) duplicated twice in the course of its evolution (Davidson et al. 2003). The duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions gets around the "challenge" of irreducible complexity evolving gradually.
2. Blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Some animals -- dolphins, for example -- get along fine without the Hagemann factor (Robinson et al. 1969), a component of the human blood clotting system which Behe includes in its "irreducible" complexity (Behe 1996, 84). Doolittle and Feng (1987) predicted that "lower" vertebrates would lack the "contact pathway" of blood clotting. Work on the genomes of the puffer fish and zebrafish have confirmed this (Yong and Doolittle 2003).

And again from Talk Origins, about the Kuiper Belt and Oort clouds

1. As of June 2000, more than 250 objects in the Kuiper Belt have been observed directly (Buie 2000), and it alone can be the source of short-term comets.
   
   The Oort cloud has not been observed directly (although Sedna, a planetoid discovered in March 2004, might be in the Oort cloud), but its presence is well supported based on observations of long-period comets.
2. If there were no source for new comets to come from, all comets would have the same age. They do not. Some are young and have lots of gasses; others are little more than gravel heaps.

You see all the points on your web site are what we on this site call PRATTs, an acronym standing for: Points Refuted A Thousand Times. They are so well known and discredited that there is a site that lists them and gives the scientific refutation.

I would be extremely impressed if you could come up with any objection to Evolution ( even tangentially like Oort Clouds ) tha was not already known and refuted.

But good luck in that.

 

[Jacquo]

Dear Baggins,

So, where is the mention of the Giraffe's particular blood clotting system?

And, where are the co-ordinates requested?

And why is so much from talk origin like yourselves (apparently) out of context responses?

The only one not so thus far and properly addressed is Dannager's last one (if I'm not mistaken).

Regards,

Jac

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Dear Baggins,

So, where is the mention of the Giraffe's particular blood clotting system?

Please tell us how the giraffe's blood clotting system is different from that of other mammals. Perhaps you are confused by the fact that giraffes have very tough skin in their lower legs which prevents blood from pooling and clotting as it might in such a tall animal.

 

[Baggins]

Dear Baggins,

So, where is the mention of the Giraffe's particular blood clotting system?

And, where are the co-ordinates requested?

And why is so much from talk origin like yourselves (apparently) out of context responses?

The only one not so thus far and properly addressed is Dannager's last one (if I'm not mistaken).

Regards,

Jac

If you want to make your questions a bit more specific, we can make the answers a bit more specific.

But if you just want to post a list of PRATTs the we will just answer with a list of PRATT refutations.

Balls in your court, a specific questions will usually get a detailed answer.

As a geologist I can answer your concerns about erosion rates, the Grand Canyon and the like, but I will probably leave any in depth Biochemical questions to the people on the boards who have degrees in that discipline

 

[Baggins]

Dear Baggins,

So, where is the mention of the Giraffe's particular blood clotting system?

And, where are the co-ordinates requested?

And why is so much from talk origin like yourselves (apparently) out of context responses?

The only one not so thus far and properly addressed is Dannager's last one (if I'm not mistaken).

Regards,

Jac

As for the question about Oort Clouds and Kuiper Belts I can make no sense of what you have written and cannot discern what question you are asking, I wonder if you know what you are talking about. But I can't find any mention of this problem on Jarom net so you will have to be a lot clearer in what you wish to ask on this question.

 

[futzman]

Well.....that's the least bitter thing u've said all day!

Don't confuse bitter with just plain mean. I'm actually being quite nice here compared to my usual disposition.

You've got a deal!

Just don't die before it post it.

I really can't wait.

Futz

 

[Ioinc]

Dear Baggins,

The only one not so thus far and properly addressed is Dannager's last one (if I'm not mistaken).

Regards,

Jac

are you serious?

I can only pray that you are joking... and I am an atheist so anything that makes me pray is serious.

There must have been at least 5 links that clearly showed several of your arguments false.

The shark that was pulled up by the fishing boat and mistaken for a dino and footprints next to dino tracks are the first two that come to mind.

This leaves two options (that I can think of), either you did not know they were false and therefore can not be considered a valid source for information on this topic, or you are deliberately trying to give false information in the hopes that people will not research it and take it to be true. Or both.

I think this is one of the common tactics of creationists…. Spout a bunch of crap that sounds good on the surface and hope that most people are too lazy to research it and discover that if falls apart like tissue paper. Unfortunately it tends to work since so many people want to believe in creationism.

There were multiple issues that were addressed as faulty and you were provided a link to show just that.

Yet despite the fact that this all took place 3 days ago you have focused on a mountain range?

You are no longer even maintaining the illusion that your points are valid.

 

[MewtwoX]

Two things:

1. There's no particular difference in the typical Creationist argument for blood clotting systems, however they do try to throw IC at the blood pressure of Giraffes. The response?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB325.html

2. You didn't deal with the "Abiogenesis" part, you just handwaived it right back into your definition.

While we're listening to your unreasonable demands of clumping theories together, maybe you'd like to clump in theFundamental Theorem of Line Integrals into Evolution as well? After all, they use some math in Evolution, so obviously we can include math theorems into Evolution as well and disprove all of Evolution by disproving those theorems...

 

[Jacquo]

Dear Frumious Bandersnatch, Baggins, Ioinc and Mewtwox,

To FB: Feel free to obtain a copy of "in Six Days" which will furnish you with what you need in answer to your question.

To B: Please read me in context. I was referring to Dannager's ealier posts when mentioning Oort and Kuiper.

To I: You prove my earlier point about confusion: you confuse a non reply with inability to do so; as opposed to only having infrequent time opportunity to respond.

To M: I'm sorry, but again the blood clotting mechanism/system of a giraffe is not mentioned at all in the talk origin article. I have correctly responded to the abiogenesis argument as the context shows it is the general belief of evolution - the whole world view/outlook if you will - that is being addressed and not the specific supposed evolutionary macro change theory. Indeed the Big Bang, the alleged grand age of the earth are also all part of this 'evolution' religion IMHO.

Regards,

Jacques

 

[Baggins]

I have correctly responded to the abiogenesis argument as the context shows it is the general belief of evolution - the whole world view/outlook if you will - that is being addressed and not the specific supposed evolutionary macro change theory. Indeed the Big Bang, the alleged grand age of the earth are also all part of this 'evolution' religion IMHO.

This is completely untrue and I am fairly sure that you no it to be so.

This is one of the oldest creationist tricks in the book, you conflate evolution with a load of other theories and attack them all in a sort of scattergun way.

Abiogenesis is a theory of how life formed from self replicating chemicals, it it is falsified tomorrow that has no bearing on the ToE.

God could have created the first self replicating organism, but the ToE would still hold true.

Aliens could have created the first self replicating organism, but the ToE would still hold true.

human beings from the future could have created the first self replicating organism, but the ToE would still hold true.

the Theory of evolution does not need abiogenesis to be true for it to be true and the same holds for big bang theory

And calling evolution a religion may be your honest opinion but it is also your ignorant opinion.

Evolution does not have an outlook or a world view or beliefs , it is a scientific theory that accounts for species diversity.

And the offer still stands if you have specific questions you think need you need answering about evolution ( or even about the myriad of other things you want to collate with it ) then there will be people on here who will answer them for you.

the ToE has been around for 150 years and scientists have been trying to falsify it ( prove it wrong ), for the whole of that time, because that is how science works.

If you think that you have evidence that will falsify evolution bring it forward to be considered.

 

[Ioinc]

To I: You prove my earlier point about confusion: you confuse a non reply with inability to do so; as opposed to only having infrequent time opportunity to respond.
Regards,

Jacques

Fair enough.
This of course does make the below statement completely false.

The only one not so thus far and properly addressed is Dannager's last one (if I'm not mistaken).

Regards,

Jac

Now, understanding that almost all of your ideas have been addressed and falsified and that you have not had time to make counter arguments for most of them, what are we left with?

Your ideas holds no water.

Unless you are willing to address some of the issues raised in the two early posts you have not shown anything.

I am honestly trying to understand why this is not the case.

If you feel like the rebuttals given are false (along with the associated links that backed them) please explain why.

If you feel some were valid and others were not, please let me know which ones you concede on (the decaying shark on the boat perhaps?) and which ones you do not.

Then provide supporting details for why you still hold some to be true.

If you feel you were taken out of context please show where, and what the correct context is.

If you have no time (or for some other reason are unwilling) by default I must assume your logic is faulty.

This is how (in my opinion) it stands right now

1. You say evolution is correct and direct others to a paper in your profile.
2. Someone reads the paper and painstakingly goes thru it point by point with supporting evidence of why it is not correct
3. Your response basically boils down to the statement that it is correct, but you have not time to state why.

We are humming along just fine until the 3rd point.

I don’t know how else to interpret this.