Creationists

[LOki]

5 to 10 miilions years according to your side, now show me these gradual changes that had to take place in that time frame ?

The Cambrian lasted for some 54 million years.



"Transitional fossils" is another of those terms, like "new feature" and "kinds," that creationists refuse to precisely define. I could of course show intermediate fossils between life forms in the mid-Proterozoic and the mid-Cambrian, but if I did, you would simply insist that these are not "transitional fossils" and demand something in between them, and so on for whatever is shown. This is, of course, completely dishonest.

But prove me wrong. Give me a precise definition of what exactly you mean by "transitional fossil" and I will endeavor to show you one. (Then again, you could easily find it yourself.)

My views are different because not what I have been taught like you but by reasoning on the evidence.

Your views are not based from reasoning on the evidence, but from fear of hell. You have a gun to your head and are incapable of reasoning or arguing honestly. It could not be more obvious.

Wrong again buckaroo, it lasted about 5 million years and it happenedly supposedly between 490 million years ago to 543 million years ago.


The Cambrian Period

Look it up again and do the math, retard.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion occupied millions of years. It was only "sudden" in comparison with periods of slower evolution. It was in no sense instantaneous.



My eyes are already open, thanks, and you ARE being dishonest. The mystery is why you bother. See, while the arguments you are presenting might actually sway people who are utterly ignorant of biology, you are addressing now people who have some knowledge othe subject. The flaws in it, such as your completely incorrect understanding of what happened in the Cambrian explosion, are quite obvious to us, and you are not going to accomplish anything by these tactics except to expose your own lack of intellectual integrity.

Which you are doing very nicely.

No your eyes are wide shut.

Can you explain why eldredge and gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium.It was over the stasis found in the cambrian. The body structures are still the same today go figure.

Blatant misrepresentation.

So guess again buckaroo.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Just admit to ignorance and let's move on. Both me and koshergirl are waiting for the answers to questions put to you disingenuous crowd ignorant of your own theory. I have answered your questions and you don't like the answer but you post no rebuttal to the answers provided who is being intellectually dishonest.

 

[Dragon]

Just admit to ignorance and let's move on.

Of course I'm not going to do that. You are the ignorant one here, unless you are even more dishonest than you obviously are.

Both me and koshergirl are waiting for the answers to questions put to you

And I'm still waiting for you to define your terms, without which a question cannot be answered.

I have answered your questions

No, you have not. Once again:

What is the definition of "kind"?

What is the definition of "new feature"?

What is the definition of "transitional fossil"?

Until you answer these questions, it will remain impossible to answer yours, as your questions include those terms and their meaning is unclear.

 

[koshergrl]

Why on earth are you carping on "kind"? I provided the biblical definition. Why do you need something else?

 

[Dragon]

Why on earth are you carping on "kind"? I provided the biblical definition. Why do you need something else?

Because the Biblical definition is completely vague and imprecise. If we are going to use that term in a scientific discussion, which this is, then we need to give it an exact definition.

Biology uses terms of classification for living things in a hierarchy: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. A few other terms exist for nit-pickers but those are the main ones. I know exactly what each of these terms means. Our own species, Homo sapiens, is:

species sapiens
genus Homo
family Homie (hominids and great apes)
order Primates (hominids, apes, monkeys, lemurs, and a few others)
class Mammalia (all mammals)
phylum Chordata (all animals with spinal cords)
kingdom Animal (all animals)

But "kind"? I know it's something along the same lines, but what, exactly? Is a "kind" the same as a species? Apparently not -- and it's impossible to pin down those who are using it as to what it IS equivalent to in standard biology.

Until we know exactly what "kind" means, we really can't say anything about kinds with precision.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why on earth are you carping on "kind"? I provided the biblical definition. Why do you need something else?

Because the Biblical definition is completely vague and imprecise. If we are going to use that term in a scientific discussion, which this is, then we need to give it an exact definition.

Biology uses terms of classification for living things in a hierarchy: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. A few other terms exist for nit-pickers but those are the main ones. I know exactly what each of these terms means. Our own species, Homo sapiens, is:

species sapiens
genus Homo
family Homie (hominids and great apes)
order Primates (hominids, apes, monkeys, lemurs, and a few others)
class Mammalia (all mammals)
phylum Chordata (all animals with spinal cords)
kingdom Animal (all animals)

But "kind"? I know it's something along the same lines, but what, exactly? Is a "kind" the same as a species? Apparently not -- and it's impossible to pin down those who are using it as to what it IS equivalent to in standard biology.

Until we know exactly what "kind" means, we really can't say anything about kinds with precision.

It does mean species.

Gen 1

11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.
12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.


24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

Sorry God did not use terms you're looking for they didn't exist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just admit to ignorance and let's move on.

Of course I'm not going to do that. You are the ignorant one here, unless you are even more dishonest than you obviously are.

Both me and koshergirl are waiting for the answers to questions put to you

And I'm still waiting for you to define your terms, without which a question cannot be answered.

I have answered your questions

No, you have not. Once again:

What is the definition of "kind"?

What is the definition of "new feature"?

What is the definition of "transitional fossil"?

Until you answer these questions, it will remain impossible to answer yours, as your questions include those terms and their meaning is unclear.

You really need an explanation for feature or transitional fossil,Don't be rediculous.

Are you ready to explain the cambrian now that you know what it is and what it presented ?

How bout,non-intelligence creating intelligence ?

Why do you trust the information in your brain if it was not programmed properly ?

Do you believe a computer could program itself or did it need intelligence to program it ?

 

[Dragon]

It does mean species.

Excellent! Now, in the future, if this term comes up, I will know what you mean. I'm going to hold you to this definition, though.

 

[Dragon]

You really need an explanation for feature or transitional fossil

I need an explanation of EXACTLY what YOU mean by it, in precise terms, with no wiggle room and no secret exits.

Are you ready to explain the cambrian now that you know what it is and what it presented ?

I always knew. I already explained it: your notion that the Cambrian explosion happened instantaneously is non-factual. It didn't. It was simply a period of unusually rapid evolution. So the only thing to explain (if anything at all) is that evolution does not proceed at a constant speed. Do you need that explained?

How bout,non-intelligence creating intelligence ?

Well, first we have to define intelligence and how it works. If you really want an explanation of this, follow along.

The root operation of intelligence is simply trial and error. It presumes a preferred outcome, which for living things is (at simplest level) survival. Do A. If A works, live. If A doesn't, die.

Now let's suppose a large group of living things (one-celled organisms in this case). Let's say they are faced with choices between two actions in a given situation and make those choices randomly. Those that choose A live. Those that choose B die. Now let's recognize also, because this is true, that a predilection to choose A instead of B can be encoded into the genes. Further, let's posit that a certain percentage, say 10%, are coded to prefer A, while another 10% are coded to prefer B, and the remaining 80% are coded to prefer neither. Over time, those coded to prefer A will replace the population coded to prefer B or neither, because they will survive and pass on their genes more reliably. Eventually, the entire population will be genetically programmed to prefer A.

So there we have the simplest, most basic form of intelligence: a genetic, instinctive preference to make a particular decision. There's a lot of that in nature. We're not up to what we would call intelligence proper, yet, but bear with me.

Now let's skip a few steps, because to have intelligence as that term is normally meant we need a multicelled organism. (I can explain how that happens, too. It's not nearly as mysterious as you seem to think. But I'll skip it for now.) All right, we have multicelled organisms and the beginning of differentiation, with some cells specializing in some functions and other cells in other functions. Again, I'm skipping steps, but none of this presents any problem at all to evolutionary theory.

One of the advances likely to happen because it presents a clear survival advantage is the development of specialized nerve tissue, which makes the processing of information and sensing of the environment more efficient. We're still not up to intelligence properly so called, but now we have information coming to the organism for it to act upon. It still makes decisions by random trial and error, "learning" over generations and "deciding" by instinct, but does so more efficiently. But specialized nerve tissue allows for another advance: memory. Memory means that the organism can recall what it did on a prior decision and whether or not it worked. So instead of making a new random decision each time, it can make a random decision once, and if that works out remember and make the same decision (no longer random) next time. This gives it a big survival advantage, so memory is kept and passed on to future generations.

Now, over time and generations, more nerve tissue is given over to the functions of sensation and memory (natural selection alone can do this, no mutations needed at this stage). And at some point, we add a new refinement: imagination. The organism comes upon a situation that isn't exactly like anything it's met before, but enough like it that it can extrapolate. Instead of just barging ahead and doing A or B, it imagines doing both, imagines the outcome (in which it may be right or wrong), and chooses in real life whichever approach it imagines will be better. And again, over time and generations, its descendants become better at doing this through a process of natural selection.

So let's review what we have so far:

1) Basic trial and error decision making leads to instinctive knowledge.

2) Multicelled organization leads to specialized nerve tissue.

3) Specialized nerve tissue leads to memory.

4) Memory leads to imagination, and the making of decisions by imaginary trial and error rather than the real thing.

And there we have the basis for intelligence. Everything else is just refinement and improvement.

That's how evolution works, not in one huge jump but in many smaller increments, each opening new possibilities.

 

[LOki]

No your eyes are wide shut.

Can you explain why eldredge and gould came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium.It was over the stasis found in the cambrian. The body structures are still the same today go figure.

Blatant misrepresentation.

So guess again buckaroo.

Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

Just admit to ignorance and let's move on.

Ignorant of what you mean when you use terms that you don't define in a deliberately imprecise manner that defies definition?

Sure thing retard. Consistent with your brand of intellectual dishonesty, you still have not provided a precise, meaningful definition of the term "kind."

EDIT: I now see Post 906, and I'll accept YWC's definition as I accepted koshergrl's earlier. It's about fucking time.​

Both me and koshergirl are waiting for the answers to questions put to you disingenuous crowd ignorant of your own theory.

No you're not. You have been answered repeatedly and in depth.

But here's the deal you mendacious buffoon, You need only post those question I have not answered but once, and I will (unlike you) respond--provided that you first answer the one question I have asked of you dozens of times.

Too honest of a deal for you?

And, it's worth noting (again) that your dishonesty is magnified by your hypocrisy manifested in your own refusal to answer questions directed at you.

I have answered your questions and you don't like the answer....

No you haven't. Not once.

I defy you to link to this answer.

You won't, I assure you, because you have not answered the question I have asked you, so there is literally no answer for you to link to.

...but you post no rebuttal to the answers provided who is being intellectually dishonest.

There is no answer to rebut you fucktard. You have repeatedly refused to answer the question I have asked you, and now to cement the proof of your intellectual dishonesty you project your lack of integrity with this patently bullshit accusation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.

 

[Dragon]

You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.

LOL that was predictable. Bye.

 

[LOki]

You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.

Later on, retard!

 

[LOki]

You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.

LOL that was predictable. Bye.

lol

 

[Youwerecreated]

You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.

LOL that was predictable. Bye.

What's really funny you believe a word in the bible is what the debates about. Sorry It's the evidence which apparently your only evidence are words something I said many times in debates on this issue. Koshergirl was right about you. So long

 

[LOki]

You guys have proven not to be worthy of debating this issue I don't see any reason to carry on so you guys enjoy being brainwashed.

LOL that was predictable. Bye.

What's really funny you believe a word in the bible is what the debates about. Sorry It's the evidence which apparently your only evidence are words something I said many times in debates on this issue. Koshergirl was right about you. So long

Keep running! Run, Forrest, run!

 

[Dragon]

What's really funny you believe a word in the bible is what the debates about. Sorry It's the evidence which apparently your only evidence are words something I said many times in debates on this issue. Koshergirl was right about you. So long

Not only are your thoughts incoherent, so is your use of the English language.

No, you're just doing what creationists typically do when confronted with sound logic and real knowledge: running away. You have no real answer to the arguments you're confronting, your walls of text didn't work and you don't understand them well enough to deal with that failure, and your commitment to defend the indefensible has simply put you in an impossible position.

Perhaps all you need to do is grow up a little. I do get the impression I'm dealing with a child here, given your poor syntax, vocabulary, and reasoning ability. If so, best of luck to you.

 

[LOki]

What's really funny you believe a word in the bible is what the debates about. Sorry It's the evidence which apparently your only evidence are words something I said many times in debates on this issue. Koshergirl was right about you. So long

Not only are your thoughts incoherent, so is your use of the English language.

No, you're just doing what creationists typically do when confronted with sound logic and real knowledge: running away. You have no real answer to the arguments you're confronting, your walls of text didn't work and you don't understand them well enough to deal with that failure, and your commitment to defend the indefensible has simply put you in an impossible position.

Perhaps all you need to do is grow up a little. I do get the impression I'm dealing with a child here, given your poor syntax, vocabulary, and reasoning ability. If so, best of luck to you.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dragon again."​

 

[LOki]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO7IT81h200&feature=player_profilepage"]Creation 'Science' Made Easy[/ame]

I'm going to go out farther on a limb than the guy above, and put forth the assertion that being based on faith, Intelligent Design, and the entirety of Creation "science," is not only factually wrong (as demonstrated over and over) but also morally wrong ... because of the faith:

I had faith last night when I went to bed the sun would rise is that rational thought to assume it was gonna rise today ?

No. Rational thought requires verifiable evidence and/or valid logic. Faith requires the absence and denial of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

If your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, then your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is not faith--it cannot be--whether the sun rises or not.

For instance; if the sun in fact of reality (as evidenced by its rising) rises the next morning and you maintain the belief that it did rise, you are validating (by accepting the verifiable evidence as the validating criteria of the sun having risen) your past (rational) belief and are still not exercising faith.

If the sun (as evidenced by its failure to rise) does not rise the next morning and you maintain the belief that it did not rise, you are invalidating (by accepting the verifiable evidence as the validating criteria of the sun having not risen) your past (rational) belief--IOW: you admit you were wrong, and are still not exercising faith by accepting the verifiable evidence of the sun having not risen--even if it has (in fact of reality) and the evidence of the fact is not available to you.

If, OTOH, your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is unfounded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, then your belief that the sun will rise tomorrow is faith--it must be--whether the sun rises or not.

For instance; if you believed that the sun will not rise tomorrow in spite of all the evidence that it has in the past, and lack of evidence for a change of the conditions under which past experience prevails, you are exercising faith. If the sun rises in fact of reality (as evidenced by its rising) the next morning and you maintain the belief that it did not rise (in denial of the verifiable evidence that it has risen) then you are again exercising faith currently, as well as validating (by denying the verifiable evidence as the validating criteria of the sun having risen) the faith you held yesterday.

If, without any regard what-so-ever for any evidence regarding the rising of the sun, you believed that the sun will rise, you are still exercising faith. If the sun in fact of reality (as evidenced by its rising) rises the next morning and you maintain the belief that it did so without any regard what-so-ever for any evidence regarding the rising of the sun, then you are still exercising faith, as well as validating (by denying the verifiable evidence as the validating criteria of the sun having risen) the faith you held yesterday.

And here is where the rubber meets the road folks. Rationally held beliefs, (valid) reasoning is morally superior to faith, in that reason at it's very worst is amoral--simply incorrect. Otherwise, reason (i.e. rationally held beliefs) is verifiably right & truthful--verifiable against objective reality.

Faith ... well, faith is just amoral on it's very best day--faith is a broken clock that gets it right by pure coincidence, but not as the result of any intent of design. And when you ascribe even good intentions you end up with lies reinforced by the certainty of the approval of a conscience of faith. Unless faith is operating at its very best, it is patently immoral--it is the road to intellectual and moral folly, it is lies, it is the seed of corruption.

 

[Sheldon]

I've said it too. Repeatedly.

It's not that we aren't honest about it.

It is. You are dishonest about it. Faith is not rational; it's not possible to hold a belief both on faith and rational bases at the same time.

Such "admissions" cannot be acknowledged (as valid) as long as you demand (dishonestly) that faith has any validating foundation in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic.

Such demands are self-evidently invalid, and the persistence of such demands in the face of their invalidity speaks directly to dishonesty.

I literally have no idea to whom you are referring, except to say it's not me. I will say this to you though, any belief system that is founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic can not be faith; any belief system that is validated by verifiable evidence and or valid logic can not be faith.

Such a belief system has literally NOTHING to do with faith--it simply cannot have anything to do with faith.

... that they can't fathom anyone else following the same course of denial.

You're absolutely wrong. Plenty of reasonable, rational folks have sufficient experience with toddlers to fathom how superstitious folks like you follow courses of intellectual denial. What can't be fathomed is how anyone who subscribes to faith can honestly assert that the foundations and validations of their beliefs have anything but a superficially coincidental--but in absolutely no way necessary--consistency with an objective reality, or with beliefs founded upon verifiable evidence and/or valid logic (i.e. rational thought/beliefs).

You see koshergrl, if you asshats would just (honestly) attribute the whole thing to "magic," you'd find folks like me taking a far less hostile position against your claims.

Q. How do explain the vastness of the known universe and the existence and diversity of life?
A. God made everything using magic.

Q. God? What God? Certainly not this God from your Bible--that thing is riddled with errors of fact! How do you explain that the Bible presumes a flat Earth when in reality it is clearly a sphere? And Geo-centrism; explain the patent geo-centric assertions of Biblical cosmology.
A. Magic. The Earth is unambiguously the center of God's creation, and certainly flat ... it is Satan's evil magic that makes it appear otherwise, so as to help lure the people that God loves away from righteousness. Satan lies, and Spherical-Earth, Helio-centric solar system, and certainly Evolution are all (magical) lies from Satan.

Q. Fine. There is still other weird stuff ... like Noah's Flood. Where did all the water for this flood come from?
A. Magic. Using magic, God flooded the whole world.

Q. What about the lack of evidence that such a flood ever occurred? No single layer of silt deposit featuring all the organisms (including unicorns) created all mixed together, no concurrent flood stories from all the different cultures, etc...
A. Magic. Using magic, God mixed and separated sedimentary layers in an effort to organize and tidy up a little; using magic he also blurred (or just deleted) the memories of different peoples in different places, etc...

Q. Why? Why do that?
A. Because you need to believe in magic, in order for magic to be real.

Q. But that's circular reasoning--question begging--logically invalid. How do you account for that?
A. Logic whatever ... it's magic. It's all magic, all the way around, and all the way down.​

Clearly such honesty would not make you any less of a superstitious retard, but at least you'd be honest. Most of us (at least those like myself) are mostly offended by the dishonesty, not the retardedness. Honest retards (even the superstitious ones) get my sympathy and my sincere wishes for happiness, and efforts to "mainstream" them so they can enjoy the greatest benefits of their potential. The dishonest get my abiding antipathy; dishonest retards get no sympathy; and dishonest superstitious retards also get my mean-spirited ridicule.

And they deserve it.

So what are you going to do about it? Are you going to level up?

Maybe you'll decide to just be a retard; or a superstitious retard.

Maybe you could start by encouraging your fellow--Youwerecreated--to level up.

That would be nice. Seriously. It's not like every opportunity has not been offered.

What would be more amusing though, would be telling me that you (and hopefully your little cohort of dopey Bible-scientists) intend to remain a dishonest superstitious retard ... and that you intend to continue griping about what it gets you.

I'm pretty good with that too.

I had faith last night when I went to bed the sun would rise is that rational thought to assume it was gonna rise today ?

Of course that would be rational. It's based on repeatable observations of the universe that could be falsified. There's a name for this process but I just can't seem to remember it at the moment.