Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

JedPerkins · Aug 14, 2006

supersport said:
Well the genome has 6 billion nucleotides...how many do you think NS would have had to sort through via survival of the fittest to accomplish this feat?

Get real; your theory is pathetic

Psst, most of them are repeats (there aren't 6 billion unique nucleotides ). Also, you have demonstrated you have no idea the speeds at which chemical processes like bond formation occur (hint: fast). If you wanted to impress us, you should have thrown out a number on a much larger order of magnitude... but then you probably can't conceive of a number beyond the billions, can you?

supersport · Aug 14, 2006

Lucretius said:
A little angry are we? Is it because I provided an answer to your question?

Natural selection doesn't run through every little sequence in the genome, one at a time, until it finds one it dislikes and discards if anything in the genome decreases the fitness of a creature, it will be selected against. I don't think you understand how natural selection works.

I'm not mad at all...just speaking the truth....Toe explains nothing.

Lucretius · Aug 14, 2006

supersport said:
I'm not mad at all...just speaking the truth....Toe explains nothing.

Correction

The Theory of Evolution does explain things, but either you can't understand it or you disagree with the answer.

JedPerkins · Aug 14, 2006

supersport said:
I'm not mad at all...just speaking the truth....Toe explains nothing.

You mean that it explains nothing in a way that you understand, and therefor you completely reject it without even putting in the effort to understand it.

supersport · Aug 14, 2006

JedPerkins said:
You mean that it explains nothing in a way that you understand, and therefor you completely reject it without even putting in the effort to understand it.

When I say it explains nothing I mean there is not one piece of airtight evidence that proves Toe is true. Not one.

JedPerkins · Aug 14, 2006

supersport said:
When I say it explains nothing I mean there is not one piece of airtight evidence that proves Toe is true. Not one.

Well, it explains lots of things, you just choose to ignore them. There is also plenty of of evidence that supports that it is the best working theory (it is of course not proven to be true, as that is not how we in the scientific world really do things... but that's been explained to you before) for how life progresses.

As a counterpoint... There is not once piece of airtight evidence that proves the Bible is true. Does that mean the Bible explains nothing?

notto · Aug 14, 2006

supersport said:
When I say it explains nothing I mean there is not one piece of airtight evidence that proves Toe is true. Not one.

Funny that scientists worldwide disagree with you and use it every day for useful applications in their work.

Pretty amazing for something that explains nothing.

It looks like your argument has run its course and your now down to potshots about things that you think are confusing and bald assertion.

You are a great creationist.

vipertaja · Aug 14, 2006

notto said:
Funny that scientists worldwide disagree with you and use it every day for useful applications in their work.

Pretty amazing for something that explains nothing.

It looks like your argument has run its course and your now down to potshots about things that you think are confusing and bald assertion.

You are a great creationist.

Indeed. Must be hilarious to be cured by something based on nothing whatsoever.

supersport · Aug 14, 2006

JedPerkins said:
Well, it explains lots of things, you just choose to ignore them. There is also plenty of of evidence that supports that it is the best working theory (it is of course not proven to be true, as that is not how we in the scientific world really do things... but that's been explained to you before) for how life progresses.

As a counterpoint... There is not once piece of airtight evidence that proves the Bible is true. Does that mean the Bible explains nothing?

I admit I live on faith...but faith is something that evolutionists pass off as hot air. In reality though, you guys have to have just as much faith as we do. More, in fact, because you cannot give me one piece of hard evidence that shows your theory is true. That's not a good thing if you claim to be practicing "science." To me science should be viewable, testable and repeatable. Unfortunately, anything that CAN be tested does not get tested. Ie..plasticity, tests on animals to see how they respond to environmental changes, natural selection, environmentally-cued mutations, etc. Instead, all of that is completely ignored. Yet, evolutionists walk around with a smile on their face as if evolution is a "fact." S

JedPerkins · Aug 14, 2006

supersport said:
I admit I live on faith...but faith is something that evolutionists pass off as hot air. In reality though, you guys have to have just as much faith as we do. More, in fact, because you cannot give me one piece of hard evidence that shows your theory is true. That's not a good thing if you claim to be practicing "science."

Several pieces of evidence have been shown to you supporting evolutionary theory. The fact is, the only "hard evidence" you would accept is if God (or someone who convinced you they were God) told you evolution were true. Actually, even then you'd probably ignore it.

supersport said:
To me science should be viewable, testable and repeatable.

If you mean viewable with our EYES... well, there are a few other well founded theories that you need to try to debunk too. You'll fail, but don't let that stop you.

I have a theory for you and it is viewable, testable, and repeatable. The theory is: supersport does not carry on an intellectually honest debate on the topic of evolution. We have all viewed you repeatedly being dishonest, so the theory passes the test.

supersport said:
Unfortunately, anything that CAN be tested does not get tested. Ie..plasticity, natural selection, environmentally-cued mutations, etc. S

Yes they do. Do you suffer from selective illiteracy?

Tomk80 · Aug 15, 2006

supersport said:
http://www.neurologyreviews.com/jan00/nr_jan00_visionrestored.html

Evidently the human brain can build new vision pathways if the old ones are destroyed by disease.

how do you evolutionists explain this if there is no intelligence in the genome?

The brain continuously makes new patterns. If routes are used more often, they get strengthened. So basically, inside the brain it's also a bit of random pathmaking and selecting from the pathways. This is not evolution though.

LightHorseman · Aug 15, 2006

Repeatable evidence for evolution? How about bacterial resistance to antibiotics?

Gve me a petri dish, a sample of penicilin susceptible staphylococus Aureus, and a bottle of pillsand I promise you I can have a form of MRSA inside of two weeks

LightHorseman · Aug 15, 2006

as for other airtight examples, how about intermediate forms?

My personal favourite is the archaeopterix, but feel free to take a look at

The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:
Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
Dinosaur-bird transitions.
Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).

LightHorseman · Aug 15, 2006

And my very last...

If God created all the animals 6 thousand years ago, and all the currently extinct animals number among them... just where the heck was there room for ALL those different species????

joey444 · Aug 15, 2006

It's obviously what Kent Hovind said, they just brought one of each kind of animal. Meaning they brought 2 dinosaurs and got all the different species from them. <_<

Mincus · Aug 15, 2006

joey444 said:
It's obviously what Kent Hovind said, they just brought one of each kind of animal. Meaning they brought 2 dinosaurs and got all the different species from them. <_<

He means just in general.

There's (apparently, going on hearsay from a debate against Hovind, somewhere in http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5704936945236828793 iirc) a huge area of fossils that if they were all alive at the same time (as "all fossils were created in a biblical flood" would suggest) that they'd over-populate the earth. That's just a singular area of fossils, never mind all the others around the world.

That video is interesting to watch, because you see just how good at talking to the public Hovind is, whilst largely ignoring any point his opponent brings up whilst his opponent is trying to deal with so many lies and is only specialised in a singular field instead of the entire "universe creation to modern day" thing that Hovind throws around.

joey444 · Aug 15, 2006

In Hovind's leacture, he does actually say that they would only need 2 dinosaurs.

Mincus · Aug 15, 2006

joey444 said:
In Hovind's leacture, he does actually say that they would only need 2 dinosaurs.

For the ark? Yeah, "a pink one and a blue one" as he likes to put it...
How just two "generic dinosaurs" superfast micro-evolved into all the other sorts of dinosaurs we find whilst still remaining hidden from humans is something of a flaw in that... But that kinda goes for all his "kinds" argument. In one instance he's refuting evolution, in another he's claiming it can create superb diversification within a "kind" in just a few thousand years.

The guy really is a joke.

LightHorseman · Aug 15, 2006

"It's obviously what Kent Hovind said, they just brought one of each kind of animal. Meaning they brought 2 dinosaurs and got all the different species from them. "

So, you suggest that 2 ancestor animals could give raise to ll the subsequent kinds of that Order, through some sort of process of genetic differencing huh? Amazing!

Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

What a minute... they did! Bugger me! ITS CALLED EVOLUTION YOU FRIGGIN WIERDOS!

rmwilliamsll · Aug 15, 2006

ITS CALLED EVOLUTION

actually it is hyperevolution exceeding anything science teaches by several orders of magnitude

6k for YECists does what 60M in the real world.
4 orders of magnitude FASTER....ouch.
YECist since the flood propose evolution works within kinds 10000 times faster than any modern science would predict.....

just imagine.

Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Legend

A real nobrainer

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Titleless

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

avid reader

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency