reproductive barriers

[JohnR7]

My point was in the faulty logic and has nothing to do with evolution.

My point was that LOTS of faulty logic gets passed off AS evolution.

 

[Mistermystery]

BUZZ< BUZZ< BUZZ

A FORUM RULE HAS BEEN BROKEN!!!!!!!!!

Sorry calling me a "fool" is against the rules.

Go straight to jail, do not pass home, so not collect $200.

You must now wait untell you draw a get out of jail card.

There you go again. and again. And again. It's pretty obvious that you act like a fool.

You ALWAYS divert the topic at hand and call people "rule breakers" While you activly act on them as well. You also try to lure people in breaking the rules by using dishonest debate techniques. This is again an observation, not namecalling, and I would like it if you just shut up about this, and act mature for once. RESPOND TO THE PART OF THE MESSAGE BELOW THE DOTTED LINE:
----
John: Lucaspa has made some good points in responce to your topic. Adress them, and read past the jabs he makes.

 

[lucaspa]

According to talkorigin: "pop science nonsense abounds".
Why do I need to produce additional evidence when evolutionists admit that "nonsense abounds" when it comes to evolutionary science?

Nice duck, John, but it is a duck. When you say that one species can't transform into another species, you need to produce evidence of that statement. You need to cite experiments where speciation was tried and failed, or you need to cite genetic studies showing some impassible barrier between the genome of one species and another.

Now, once again I will ask you: please post what you consider "evidence". An out of context quote from talkorigins is what you consider "evidence"?

Or does he consider his misquotes of the Bible to be evidence and proof?

It would appear that your nonsense continues to abound also.

That didn't answer the question, John. Let me ask you again: do you consider the misquotes from talkorigins and the Bible that you post to be evidence and proof? A simple yes or no is all that is required.

 

[Mistermystery]

Nice duck, John, but it is a duck. When you say that one species can't transform into another species, you need to produce evidence of that statement. You need to cite experiments where speciation was tried and failed, or you need to cite genetic studies showing some impassible barrier between the genome of one species and another.

Now, once again I will ask you: please post what you consider "evidence". An out of context quote from talkorigins is what you consider "evidence"?

That didn't answer the question, John. Let me ask you again: do you consider the misquotes from talkorigins and the Bible that you post to be evidence and proof? A simple yes or no is all that is required.

While you maybe want to make it easy on him, I for one want to see him respond to someone's entire message instead of quotes, bits and pieces. Don't encourage him to let him get away with a "simple yes or no"awnser.

 

[lucaspa]

Have you read the list of endangered or extinct species? "Evolution" does not seem to be working very good to keep them alive.

So? Their environment is changing too rapidly for the population to adapt. Perfectly in accord with evolution. Where did you get the idea that evolution would always keep a population alive, John?

Look at the extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous. A meteor impact that drastically changed the climate, with massive forest fires and world-wide winter for several years. Of course whole species died!

John, you claimed to know something about evolution. Then you post this. It contradicts your claim about knowledge of evolution.

Now, John, what is the cause of most of the environmental change for these species? Humans, isn't it?

 

[lucaspa]

God "zapped" them into existance? Like I said, you know very little about creation "theory", because you know so little about your Bible.

I will get you started though, because I do not want to leave you in the dark.

John 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. [4] In him was life; and the life was the light of men. [5] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

We will start here with the word: "word", logos in the Greek. Begin to do a study on that, because if you do not understand the concept of what a logos is, you will not understand creationism.

In fact, you will not really understand evolution either.

John, creation is discussed in Genesis 1-3. John 1 simply says that Jesus and God are the same and that Jesus has existed since the beginning of time. I refer you to John 1:14-16. Now, verse 3 states that all things were made by God/Jesus, but it does not say how they were made. Creationism does state how they were made: specially created in their present form by God. What I call "zapping" because the manufacture happened in a short time. If you take Genesis 2:19 that was formation from dust to their present form. If you take Genesis 1, God spoke the species into existence.

Stop distracting with Logos, please:
"Logos: An ancient Pagan Greek term meaning "word" or "reason", and used to indicate the concept that the universe was governed by a higher form of intelligence. St. Paul and other Christians have used it to describe Jesus as the "Logos of God" - the concept that the eternal thoughts of God were made incarnate (endowed with a body) in Jesus." http://www.religioustolerance.org/gl_l.htm

 

[lucaspa]

Nice theory Nathan but your pop science does not pan out on this one.

While it maybe true that due to a "greenhouse effect" or whatever there is a more rapid change in the world tempture than what would normally take place, this could account for the increase in the extinction rate of the species.

The problem with this is that during the Pleistocene extinctions there is just no clear evidence that you can blame mankind for that extinction.

This is a classic example of John ducking an issue.

1. Nathan only said that environments change too rapidly for a population to adapt. He said nothing about climate or greenhouse effect.

2. John fails to realize that environment means a lot more than simply climate.

3. We aren't talking about blaming humans for the megafauna extinctions at the end of the Pleistocene.

The change in world tempeture took place at pretty much the same rate that it always has, and yet mass extinction still took place.

John, this would say that temperature change is always taking place, but this can't be true. After all, if temp were constantly rising, the planet would eventually be cooked. Also, if temp were constantly falling, then the planet would freeze.

So, it's not only the rate of change, but also the direction and amount of change. Change in temp also changes climate, so that where there was once prairie there would now be desert, or where there was tundra there would now be prairies with hot summers. In either case, fauna adapted to the previous environment may, or may not, be able to adapt to keep up with the changing climate. Depends on whether the necessary variations appear in the population. If they don't, then the population dies.

So much for Nathan's pop science theorys.

John's desperation is showing because his use of ad hominem is growing.

 

[lucaspa]

According to Talkorigion the majoirity of biologists do not understand biological evolution and you expect me to, when the so called experts do not even understand what Talkorigion says is NOT a "difficult concept".

John, a theory is independent of the people who discuss it. A theory is a group of statements about the physical universe. That some people saying that they support the theory actually misstate it has nothing to do with the truth of the theory. The next paragraphs of the page show you exactly what the author means. But you won't read that, even tho I posted a lot of it to you.

Also, a person can get most statements of the theory correct but make a mistake in some. The author gave a great example when he quoted a biologist mentioning the "great chain of being" in connection with evolution. The biologist made a mistake.

And yes, we expect you to understand it. We expect you to study what the theory really is, what the data really is, and to ask questions to clarify what you don't understand.

But you aren't doing that. Instead, you are dogmatically and, in violation of the 9th Commandment, using whatever little out of context snippets you can find to deny evolution because you have already made up your mind. You are no longer open to looking for truth. You have decided what truth is, no matter what God tells you differently both in the Bible and in His Creation. Now, ignoring God is the mark of a false prophet, isn't it? Is it any wonder that we will not follow you?

 

[lucaspa]

My point was that LOTS of faulty logic gets passed off AS evolution.

And LOTS of faulty logic gets passed off AS "the Bible" or AS religion. Look at The Fundamentals or your posts about the Bible. So what? The search for truth means sorting the wheat from the chaff. We throw out the false theology you post and we throw out the faulty logic of Gould on species selection. But we keep the true theology of the Golden Rule and the true logic of natural selection and punctuated equilibrium.

 

[lucaspa]

At least I have grown past the third grade level that you are at in your understanding of the Bible.

John, I've made several posts correcting your use of various Bible verses. You have failed to respond to any of them. Apparently my "third grade level" is too advanced for you to answer.

Now, you walked with open arms into the statement I made with yours about "agreeing when you grow up." Sorry you can't take it.

Have you ever heard of the 7 stages of faith? You might want to look them up. I think you are going to be shocked at the stage you are at.

 

[Nathan Poe]

BUZZ< BUZZ< BUZZ

A FORUM RULE HAS BEEN BROKEN!!!!!!!!!

Sorry calling me a "fool" is against the rules.

Go straight to jail, do not pass home, so not collect $200.

You must now wait untell you draw a get out of jail card.

Truth is an absolute legal defense.

Your foolishness has already been well established beyond any reasonable doubt... by you.

 

[JohnR7]

John, I've made several posts correcting your use of various Bible verses.

I correct your misuse of the Bible all the time. But you do not pay any attention to it, you just go right own with your own personal interpretation that has no foundation in the real world of theology.

Now, I understand you spend a lot of time to study whatever it is you study. But I wonder what is going to happen at the end of your life and all of your work is tested by fire. How much do you think will survive and how much do you think is going to end up as ashes. Far to many people are going to end up with a hand full of ashes and that is all they will have to show for their life.

 

[JohnR7]

consider the misquotes from talkorigins

Misquotes, HA swing and a miss, nice try though.
Now you are going to try to claim that they did not say what they said.

I never thought I would see the day when the mighty Lucas would get so desperate as to try and pull a defense like this one. Now I got your number, if you can not win through a fair debate then confuse the issue. Put up a smoke screen, and if need be hide the evidence.

 

[lucaspa]

I correct your misuse of the Bible all the time. But you do not pay any attention to it, you just go right own with your own personal interpretation that has no foundation in the real world of theology.

John, you don't respond to my posts. Please post one link to where you responded. You haven't done so in this thread, and I have made 2 corrections on your use of Biblical quotes. One being Romans 8:21.

But I wonder what is going to happen at the end of your life and all of your work is tested by fire. How much do you think will survive and how much do you think is going to end up as ashes. Far to many people are going to end up with a hand full of ashes and that is all they will have to show for their life.

Is this a threat John? Is that all you can do for response, threaten me with God's judgement? John, in case you haven't noticed, you are NOT God! You are hardly in a position to issue threats.

You say you have evidence and proof. If you really have those, John, what need do you have of these vague threats of fire and ashes? Just put the evidence and proof out there. I've noticed that creationists trot out these vague threats when they can't really produce the evidence.

John, why aren't you worried that your work will end up in the fire and as ashes? Since it is not based on anything of God's -- either scripture or God's Creation -- what foundation does it have? Your work is already ashes as far as I can see. Please show us how it is more substantial by posting what you consider to be proof and evidence.

 

[Mistermystery]

And there we have our mighty john, shaking his fist at his computer-screen while screaming at the top of his lungs "I BEAT YOU INTERNETGUY! I BEAT YOU GOOD!" An other proud victory can be credited to one and only "God of the internet".

 

[Tomk80]

Misquotes, HA swing and a miss, nice try though.
Now you are going to try to claim that they did not say what they said.

I never thought I would see the day when the mighty Lucas would get so desperate as to try and pull a defense like this one. Now I got your number, if you can not win through a fair debate then confuse the issue. Put up a smoke screen, and if need be hide the evidence.

John, Lucaspa showed you why those quotes were out of context. IIRC, you have never answered those posts, just as I have never seen you answer any of the posts where Lucaspa showed you why he thought you quoted bible verses out of context. I'll not argue with you on it here, so if I'm wrong show me the post where you rebutted Lucaspa and I'll apologize. If the issue comes up again, I'll pay some closer attention.

 

[JohnR7]

John, Lucaspa showed you why those quotes were out of context.

The only problem is, they are not out of context. You guys are grasping at straws here to try to defend something you can not defend. It never fails to amaze me the extent people will go to, in order to continue to propagate their bogus man made theorys.

Whatever claim you feel Lucas made, is totally unsubstantiated. He offered no evidence at all to back up his rebutal. Check out my bait and switch thread where I show how they will present arguements and try to pawn things off as being fact, even when they have no evidence to back it up.

I do not even think Lucas believes his claim. He is just trying to present a defence for his bogas theorys and in doing so, he is grasping at straws.

 

[Mistermystery]

The only problem is, ...me.

Pulling quotes out of context is fun.


John: You respond only to lucas's lines that have nothing to do with the topic, while you leave the rest all behind. You pull up a smoke sreen and move on. Just like you do now.

Respond to his points. If you can't or don't understand him, ask him to clarify. His first initial 9 posts awnsered your query. The 3 that followed had questions but so far you haven't responded to that either. Could you act like a grown up and participate in a debate? Just for once?

 

[lucaspa]

Misquotes, HA swing and a miss, nice try though.
Now you are going to try to claim that they did not say what they said.

I dealt with this in another thread. Let's do it again. The site you are quoting is http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

The opening paragraph starts:
"Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It unites all the fields of biology under one theoretical umbrella. It is not a difficult concept, but very few people -- the majority of biologists included -- have a satisfactory grasp of it." But this is where you stop quoting. Let's do the rest of the paragraph:
"One common mistake is believing that species can be arranged on an evolutionary ladder from bacteria through "lower" animals, to "higher" animals and, finally, up to man. Mistakes permeate popular science expositions of evolutionary biology. Mistakes even filter into biology journals and texts. For example, Lodish, et. al., in their cell biology text, proclaim, "It was Charles Darwin's great insight that organisms are all related in a great chain of being..." In fact, the idea of a great chain of being, which traces to Linnaeus, was overturned by Darwin's idea of common descent. "

So, to portray evolution as a "ladder" and a "great chain of being" is a mistake. Evolution is not like that. Now, once you read the entire paragraph, what the author is trying to say becomes much clearer (like reading the entire chapter in the Bible and not just one verse).

Now, here we have a simplified but accurate statement of evolution: "Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population."

Now, go down about 4 more paragraphs and you come to this one:
"The word evolution has a variety of meanings. The fact that all organisms are linked via descent to a common ancestor is often called evolution. The theory of how the first living organisms appeared is often called evolution. This should be called abiogenesis. And frequently, people use the word evolution when they really mean natural selection -- one of the many mechanisms of evolution."

This explains some of the misconceptions.

Now, can you point to anywhere on this long page where it says evolution is wrong or false? It may be misunderstood and sometimes presented wrong, but nowhere is there any indication that evolution, properly understood, is wrong.

Now I got your number, if you can not win through a fair debate then confuse the issue. Put up a smoke screen, and if need be hide the evidence.

John, projecting your own weaknesses on others doesn't change your weakness.

 

[lucaspa]

The only problem is, they are not out of context.

Then go back and demonstrate that, starting with quoting my replies. Denial only here doesn't help you. Put up the entire paragraph if you need to, plus the paragraphs before and after. That's how you demonstrate context, not saying "they are not out of context."

Whatever claim you feel Lucas made, is totally unsubstantiated.

Instead of being vague here, John, why don't you tell us what you think the claim was. Please quote me. Then walk us thru, step by step, why and how it is unsubstantiated.

He offered no evidence at all to back up his rebutal.

Again, please be specific. Right now your statement is totally unsubstantiated because you haven't told us specifically what you are referring to.

I do not even think Lucas believes his claim. He is just trying to present a defence for his bogas theorys and in doing so, he is grasping at straws.

Which claim? That speciation has been observed? That we know the genes that are involved in reproductive isolation? That, since biological species is equivalent to your definition of "kinds", evolution is proved by observed speciation? That you quoted Romans 8:21 our of context? All of them are correct and I documented the source of the data for making them.