Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[Lobster Johnson]

You need to quote it here so I don't have to try to pick it out, or to do away with any confusion...thanks.

I did. The quote is immediately after the link. I even bolded the most relevant parts of it. If you can't see text in quote tags I'll re-post it without them.

Post 157:
********Kenny'sID Quote***********
Of course they're rare....thank you.

Problem with that is, as I already alluded, over the so-called slow process of evolution there would be hundreds or even thousands/millions or more (actually the numbers would be off the charts) in between creature that led up to what we have today, while instead, there are all but none. You are depending in the "bit's and pieces" that I already told you just won't work here (they only work against your claim) in order to make your point?

For example, let's take an ape or whatever it is you all think we evolved from, now where are the all but never ending amount of fossils that gradually turned into a man? IOW, if we find several ape fossils and several modern man fossils there would have to be tons of slowly evolving creatures fossils in between there, and for all intents and purposes, we might as well say there are none.

Again, where are they all?
********Kenny'sID Endquote***********

Very good, and pertinent question.

Yes they are rare, however that doesn't mean they don't exist, and the fact takes nothing away from my claim. You all are only seeing a "gotcha" because of your need to see it. You basically refuse to understand the "odds" factor.

As I've said umpteen times, if we found fossils at each end of the spectrum there should be at least ample in between to prove the evolution point, if not many more than ample.

And many posters have pointed out that there are in fact ample fossils to prove the point.

If you still don't accept that, that's fine.

But you are arguing that there should be more fossils than there are if evolution is true, even given the relative rarity of fossilization.

All I and the other posters can do is respond: No, you are wrong. Fossilization is rare enough that you would not expect more fossils than the amount that we do find.

And what you still don't seem to realize is that you are in fact suggesting that, if evolution is true, fossilization should happen more frequently. This is, in fact, what your argument entails. That it what you are saying, even if you don't realize it.

If you argue that fossilization is frequent enough that it should provide billions and billions of fossils of creatures that fit between the fossils that we have found if evolution is true, then even if evolution is not true, why aren't there billions and billions of fossils of non-evolved creatures along with the fossils we have found?

 

[pitabread]

Another pertinent article to this thread (on the rarity of fossils):

[E]very fossil going generally has a pretty limited timeframe in which it can be discovered. If a palaeontologist comes across it before it's on the surface, they'll walk right by, come by a little too late and the thing will have disintegrated and been destroyed. Only in that period in between (which depending on the fragility of the fossil and the rate of erosion could be just a few days) can a fossil be found and potentially collected.

Given how few palaeontologists there are out there, and the limited time we spend in the field (not to mention limited funds) it should come as no real surprise that while fossils are not only rare to begin with, we struggle to collect what is there before it is lost. Whole rafts of specimens, probably whole species and higher groups are being lost because we never found the few fossils that had survived to the modern era. Think of everything that has survived so long only to be hidden forever because it's under a car park, came to the surface in 1753, or was used as ballast, or for that matter, was collected by fossil dealers and whipped away into private collections.​

The world's fossils are going extinct | Dr Dave Hone

 

[loveofourlord]

Fossils were the subject and if you are saying there are no fossils of sea life at high elevations as it definitely appears you are, you may want to study up a bit on the basics.



I'm not acting, you are ignoring questions...end of story. And if you continue to misquote me, and insist on being clearly contrary, it will be the end of our conversation as well. A little of that is fine and doesn't necessarily equate to being contrary but your attitude is way beyond that line. Be happy to discuss this with you but We'll get nowhere without a reasonable point/counter point flow, and ours is taking up entirely too much time dealing with the misquotes and getting you to respond to questions/requests.



Another question, how does that equate to dishonesty?

I answered that question before I even asked it. Was there some question I didn't answer or are you confusing the fact I already answered that but you didn't cath it as a problem/me being dishonest of all things?? "Wow" is right.

Remember my comment about you creating things against me that aren't there?

I never said there were no fossils found at higher elevations, but it's a lie to say they were found ON mountains, it's tatamount to a lie. You don't find again them ON mountains, look at those pictures, are they ON mountains? no they are IN the mountains they ARE part of the mountains. The distinction is important because saying they are on mountains implies they are just lying around on the ground like you might find down at the beach during spawning season. What you find is, if you break a piece of a rock off they are throughout the rock, not just surface, and even those on the surface as I showed, are part of the rock. There is no way to make a fish fossilize, then be imbeded in feet of solid stone. You won't get solid rock in just 1 year of being under the ocean. Ignoring the problem of hagfish and other animals that scavenge the dead animals.

It is dishonest to demand a answer to something already given and pretend like people are avoiding them. I gave you the answer to generations, and now would like to hear what your point was.

If there are any questions I'm ignoring they are the ones you've ignored the answer to many times, I'm not going to repeat for you the same answer again and again.

THOUGH if you feel I or others have ignored a question repost it and we can either answer it, show we already did.

 

[46AND2]

Again, the evidence is the fact they are not there.

A general idea how that works, "My money is not in the safe where I left it (is not there) is evidence the money was taken."

I'm thinking... are some really not understanding that or are they pretending they have no idea of what something so simple means?

Not agreeing with your rationale is not the same thing as not understanding it...

Your money not being in the safe is not evidence, in and of itself, that it was taken, nor that it was never there. Both possibilities still exist.

 

[Aussie Pete]

ouch....your using ray comfort...thats a new low I havn't seen in ages.

simple answer, none of the first of anything had modern forms of any of that. Sexes would have evolved early on and formed from the same species, probably from simple dimorphism in it's life cycle or such. It's not like the first male baboon and female Baboon suddenly appeared randomly on the planet, everything in evolution had a parent that was nearly exactly like itself.

As for warmblooded to cold blooded, we know it happened twice so can't be all that hard, reptiles that have the benefit of regulating their temperatures a bit better would have benefits, it's not like they went cold turkey from cold blooded to warm blooded, it's something that would have happened over time, all of these happened over time. We can see in existing animals alot of the changes for blood and such along with immune systems. Simple animals have simple versions of it, it's that old saying, what good is half a eye? it's better then no eye, what good is half a heart? Two sections is better then one and so on.

And no way for new information....been waiting days for this argument, thought it would have come sooner, you guys really disapoint some times. YOU have 50+ new 'information' in your DNA that wasn't there from your parents, we all do, errors in replication cause mutations where chomosonal pairs are missing, or added, parts of your DNA might be flipped and so on, this happens every time a kid is born. Most of what is in you will be neutral, rarly will be beneficial. What about harmful mutations, they generally don't last long enough to be born.

Again, the evolution argument that it happened so it must be true. "Sexes would have evolved". How? It just did not happen. Creatures without an immune system would perish. The only time an immune system is required is when there is a threat. Too late by then. Even Darwin knew that the eye was a difficulty for his evolution theory. With what we know now, it is not just difficult. Try impossible. Oh but the eye is there (sorry two identical eyes - how did that come about so conveniently?) so evolution must be true. You can get all the Omo in the world but it still won't wash.

 

[loveofourlord]

Again, the evolution argument that it happened so it must be true. "Sexes would have evolved". How? It just did not happen. Creatures without an immune system would perish. The only time an immune system is required is when there is a threat. Too late by then. Even Darwin knew that the eye was a difficulty for his evolution theory. With what we know now, it is not just difficult. Try impossible. Oh but the eye is there (sorry two identical eyes - how did that come about so conveniently?) so evolution must be true. You can get all the Omo in the world but it still won't wash.

you will notice that for most of our body were bilateral, same on the left and on the right, so you wouldn't need to magickaly have two eyes show up, they would show up as a result of the bilateral plan of the body which shows up early within the fossil record.

Sexes would have happened early on and probably near the start of being multi cellular, we don't know the exact method, but we do know that some simple organisms have complex lives and change as they grow older.

And do get a education in the eye, it's well known and well documented within the animal kingdom how a eye formed, because we see it IN the animal kingdom, all stages of the eyes evolution still exist out there now, we don't even need the fossils for that, try something that isn't so blatantly known.

as for immune system, this again would have formed early on, as fish have the immune system, but it's not super needed early on in our evolutionary history, as jellyfish and other simple organisms don't need it, and remember the things we need the immune system for evolved with us. heck one of the initial reasons for multicelluar forms is a immune system defense against bacteria and other protozoa, as they become too big to be eaten or attacked, along with other simular forms. And being from protozoa early multicellular would have just had themselves be the defense, over time as they got more complicated better defenses would form.

Remember bacteria and living things is a arms race, we evolve to try to combat certain types of diseases, while they evolve to better attack us, bacteria have so many complicated and nasty ways to kill us now, because we've had billions of years to defend against them, back then it likly wouldn't have been so complicated.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I think it is clear to everyone here that you believe that there are too many gaps in the fossil record for you to find evolution convincing. You have said it at various times and in various ways, so it is not a question of a "misquote."

If you'll take a look at my complaints of being misquoted, you'll see it had nothing to do with that, but just a kind way of saying some of you are saying I said things that I did not, and often enough for me to comment.

 

[Kenny'sID]

.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I did. The quote is immediately after the link. I even bolded the most relevant parts of it. If you can't see text in quote tags I'll re-post it without them.

Post 157:
********Kenny'sID Quote***********
Of course they're rare....thank you.

Problem with that is, as I already alluded, over the so-called slow process of evolution there would be hundreds or even thousands/millions or more (actually the numbers would be off the charts) in between creature that led up to what we have today, while instead, there are all but none. You are depending in the "bit's and pieces" that I already told you just won't work here (they only work against your claim) in order to make your point?

OK, good, now you see there was much more to it than your misquote.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I never said there were no fossils found at higher elevations, but it's a lie to say they were found ON mountains, it's tatamount to a lie.

And I never said you did. I very clear with the "if" and that it only 'appears" you did, giving you opportunity to correct me.

Will you show me where i said they were found on mountains? Where did I "lie" or did this "tatamount to a lie'?

Also, I asked you twice to explain this:

Why are so few dinosuars and other extant species fossils found if this flood can magickally turn bones into stone, and bury shells within and under feet of stone?

Also there was this, and I do have a point so bear with me:

wow you are dishonest, you asked how many generations from apes to humans, I answered, you havn't given the point of that question and acted like we ignored it, that is dishonest, make your point about why how many generations passed matters.

Dishonest? Please explain how I was dishonest...exactly? Not only was it very simple to see where I was going with it, a few answered that question, and as you can see following this, I was still working on the math. You should have been patient, but instead you make a huge deal out of nothing. Why do you somehow think I owed you a personal explanation and how was not giving you one dishonest?? You jumped the gun on calling me dishonest, if for no other reason, I was still gathering info, and even after all I told you to stop, you turn right around and make more false accusations, as well as misquote me. Here is where I commented and was waiting for the math to be done, but it just wasn't that important I got an answer because the point was so simple, I assumed everyone got it, but had I gotten an answer to the math problem, I would have likely explained further:

Thank you. So based on a lifespan of, it really doesn't matter, but say an average of 50yrs for man. much less for most animals, how many generations does that entail? I hate math, and a few years give or take is fine.

On the other matter, you said:

you keep saying there should be more fossils, if you expect the world to be covered in fossils why arn't they there from the flood?

And I answered:

They are there...think sea life found at high elevations. What fossils are you missing? Maybe I can help with any misunderstanding.

So instead of acknowledging they were indeed found at "higher elevations", you avoided it by going off with a rather odd change of subject where you accused me of saying fossils were not on mountains, something I never claimed that I know of, and that I was a liar. Again I quote:

I never said there were no fossils found at higher elevations, but it's a lie to say they were found ON mountains, it's tatamount to a lie.

I explained to you what you were doing earlier, yet you keep misquoting me, and accusing me of doing things that I did not, and wrongfully calling me dishonest/liar more than once, or as I said, creating things against me that are not true. The thing about the way you are acting is it's all there in black and white where anyone can see what happened. Also what you are doing does not win debates, but it might as well be a flat out admission you are on the losing end and will do anything to try to reverse that.

All that is just so I'm perfectly clear and you understand why you are blacklisted for at least this thread, and remember I did my best to avoid this.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Not agreeing with your rationale is not the same thing as not understanding it...

Nor did I say it was the same.

Your money not being in the safe is not evidence, in and of itself, that it was taken, nor that it was never there. Both possibilities still exist.

I'm not going to bother defending something that made my point perfectly. I mean go figure someone would find a problem with something so simple to understand. lol

 

[loveofourlord]

And I never said you did. I very clear with the "if" and that it only 'appears" you did, giving you opportunity to correct me.

Will you show me where i said they were found on mountains? Where did I "lie" or did this "tatamount to a lie'?

Also, I asked you twice to explain this:



Also there was this, and I do have a point so bear with me:



Dishonest? Please explain how I was dishonest...exactly? Not only was it very simple to see where I was going with it, a few answered that question, and as you can see following this, I was still working on the math. You should have been patient, but instead you make a huge deal out of nothing. Why do you somehow think I owed you a personal explanation and how was not giving you one dishonest?? You jumped the gun on calling me dishonest, if for no other reason, I was still gathering info, and even after all I told you to stop, you turn right around and make more false accusations, as well as misquote me. Here is where I commented and was waiting for the math to be done, but it just wasn't that important I got an answer because the point was so simple, I assumed everyone got it, but had I gotten an answer to the math problem, I would have likely explained further:



On the other matter, you said:



And I answered:



So instead of acknowledging they were indeed found at "higher elevations", you avoided it by going off with a rather odd change of subject where you accused me of saying fossils were not on mountains, something I never claimed that I know of, and that I was a liar. Again I quote:



I explained to you what you were doing earlier, yet you keep misquoting me, and accusing me of doing things that I did not, and wrongfully calling me dishonest/liar more than once, or as I said, creating things against me that are not true. The thing about the way you are acting is it's all there in black and white where anyone can see what happened. Also what you are doing does not win debates, but it might as well be a flat out admission you are on the losing end and will do anything to try to reverse that.

All that is just so I'm perfectly clear and you understand why you are blacklisted for at least this thread, and remember I did my best to avoid this.

Sorry if I missread your statements about them being found on mountains, but the point still stands.

What we find isn't sealife just haphazzardly lying on mountains at higher levels, take a look at the pictures I showed. Tell me the mechanics, the method for how you get fish ending up burried in feet of stone. Thats not even counting places like the grand canyon where you have a mile of solid rock ontop of some fossils.

Saying there are fossils found on mountains is evidence for the flood is silly, because there is no known mechanism to create in less then a year what we see. Plus how did the shellfish even get there? they are generally low tide animals, if the flood covered mount everest, then most mountains in the US and Canada where you can find the fossils would be miles under water.

We have the mechanism for how they got there, which is of coruse uplifting and other geological events that we see happening now, but over longer periods of time.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

OK, good, now you see there was much more to it than your misquote.

There was no misquote. There was never any misquote. The quote posted was your exact words, and the bold parts high-light exactly the part that is being addressed.

 

[46AND2]

Nor did I say it was the same.



I'm not going to bother defending something that made my point perfectly. I mean go figure someone would find a problem with something so simple to understand. lol

Um...but I showed that your point was just wrong. Yes, simple to understand. No, not evidence.

 

[Kenny'sID]

There was no misquote. There was never any misquote. The quote posted was your exact words, and the bold parts high-light exactly the part that is being addressed.

Though i do understand why arguing something so petty might be important to you, I'm not going to do it.

Tell you what go ahead and milk that for all it's worth, I really do understand the need however, you only posting part of the post was enough for me to call it a misquote. It's much like posting part of a story, and the result being as good as a lie, but technically it's not.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Um...but I showed that your point was just wrong. Yes, simple to understand. No, not evidence.

In you opinion you did. As you should know by now, I disagreed, and it's a little bit funny you find that perplexing.

 

[46AND2]

In you opinion you did. As you should know by now, I disagreed, and it's a little bit funny you find that perplexing.

Do you agree that your money being absent from the safe COULD mean EITHER someone took it, OR it was not placed there in the first place? If so, how is it's absence, with no further information, evidence for either?

 

[pitabread]

Do you agree that your money being absent from the safe COULD mean EITHER someone took it, OR it was not placed there in the first place? If so, how is it's absence, with no further information, evidence for either?

Prediction: Kenny will avoid answering the question.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do you agree that your money being absent from the safe COULD mean EITHER someone took it, OR it was not placed there in the first place? If so, how is it's absence, with no further information, evidence for either?

I still think you're wrong, did you not hear me the first time? But beyond that, is this all that's left here, badgering someone about something so petty it makes no difference one way or another because the point has been made? And all so one can try to see themselves right on at least something in this thread?

Not doing this with you, no siree Bob..

 

[46AND2]

Prediction: Kenny will avoid answering the question.

Nailed it.