Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

On the face of it, run head of the corpse log just like a dolphin, so to hear that it is really another species of beaked whale is no surprise.

The Ica stones, of which there are over eleven thousand, are of unknown provenance. The original collector who started a whole new industry locally by buying them up believed that they could only have been made using advanced modern tools. As a true believer in the stones he concluded an ancient and hitherto unknown advanced society with perhaps tools from aliens had made them. But he never did learn where they came from. Do you reject this man's claims, or are you cherry picking the claims of his that you like the sound of?

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm sorry Thomas, but it's really hard to read your posts, since we all know that you are quite furry with large fangs and claws, and waiting to pounce on us.....since that's what your avatar shows.

 

[gcthomas]

I'm sorry Thomas, but it's really hard to read your posts, since we all know that you are quite furry with large fangs and claws, and waiting to pounce on us.....since that's what your avatar shows.

Crikey, I've just realised it is snowing over here!

 

[Rosenritter]

Jose says:

Ah yes, another one of your heads-I-win, tails-you-lose setups, i.e., if a population evolves a specialized, specific trait they've lost variability (which is bad), but if they evolve a more generalized trait they've lost specificity (which is bad).

How dishonest of you.

I think the dishonest part is your portrayal. He said that loss of genetic data was not evolution. You proposed that he said something different then ironically called him dishonest. No one has shown that the organism has ever changed into something different.

 

[Rosenritter]

On the face of it, run head of the corpse log just like a dolphin, so to hear that it is really another species of beaked whale is no surprise.

The Ica stones, of which there are over eleven thousand, are of unknown provenance. The original collector who started a whole new industry locally by buying them up believed that they could only have been made using advanced modern tools. As a true believer in the stones he concluded an ancient and hitherto unknown advanced society with perhaps tools from aliens had made them. But he never did learn where they came from. Do you reject this man's claims, or are you cherry picking the claims of his that you like the sound of?

http://livingdinos.com/2011/07/are-the-ica-stones-fake-skeptics-under-fire/

It's a bit long but it has some detail and history.

 

[gcthomas]

Yet the naturalist that was there disagrees with you. The photo disagrees with you on its face. Your decision is not based on additional evidence but rather by necessity.

There was no naturalist there, and E.L.Wallace the scientist does not seem to exist at. He is claimed to have been the president of the Natural History Society of British Columbia, but their records do not record the fact at all. You don't seem to rate Barton Warren Evermann, the president of the California Academy of Sciences, who actually WAS a trained and experienced marine biologist, along with others who actually had experience of these whales.

The photo doesn't even show a long neck, but what looks like a scrap of skin and blubber that has sloughed off the body after a long time immersed in the sea.

 

[Rosenritter]

Some more beaked whales for you there in the middle, with the long necks. Not the bull-looking creatures with hooves, those are squirrels.

 

[gcthomas]

Some more beaked whales for you there in the middle, with the long necks. Not the bull-looking creatures with hooves, those are squirrels.

Here is another example of the same mythical creature.
View attachment 24571
The bodies are certainly mammalian (narrow waist, square faces, feline musculature and paws, hairy chins), probably the lionesses revered by the egyptiand who carved the likenesses. The heads have triangular ears, like lions. So, unconvincing dinosaurs, but fill your boots.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think the dishonest part is your portrayal. He said that loss of genetic data was not evolution.

No, this is what he said, "The resistance may be there initially, or it may 'evolve' from pre-existing information and mechanisms. For example we know bacteria can adapt to a new environment through a mutation causing a loss of specificity."

I noted that his "loss of specificity" objection was a dishonest setup, given how previously he's argued that an organism increasing specificity was still a negative because it's a loss of variability.

IOW, it's the heads-I-win, tails-you-lose setup exactly as I characterized it.

You proposed that he said something different then ironically called him dishonest.

Obviously you're wrong.

No one has shown that the organism has ever changed into something different.

Given that your idea of "something different" seems to be the development of an entire new domain, that's hardly surprising. But all that does is reveal both your ignorance and intransigence on this issue. It also shows why it's pointless to show science to creationists.

 

[Rosenritter]

Here is another example of the same mythical creature.
View attachment 24571
The bodies are certainly mammalian (narrow waist, square faces, feline musculature and paws, hairy chins), probably the lionesses revered by the egyptiand who carved the likenesses. The heads have triangular ears, like lions. So, unconvincing dinosaurs, but fill your boots.

The pictures do vary a little. They aren't photographs. But the parts that are the same are the ratios of the bodies to legs to necks. Are you suggesting that the conglomerate image looks like a lion to you?

 

[Rosenritter]

No, this is what he said, "The resistance may be there initially, or it may 'evolve' from pre-existing information and mechanisms. For example we know bacteria can adapt to a new environment through a mutation causing a loss of specificity."

I noted that his "loss of specificity" objection was a dishonest setup, given how previously he's argued that an organism increasing specificity was still a negative because it's a loss of variability.

IOW, it's the heads-I-win, tails-you-lose setup exactly as I characterized it.



Obviously you're wrong.



Given that your idea of "something different" seems to be the development of an entire new domain, that's hardly surprising. But all that does is reveal both your ignorance and intransigence on this issue. It also shows why it's pointless to show science to creationists.

What part of "loss of genetic material does not evolution make" are you having difficulty with? Selection has to select from what already exists. See? Easy mnemonic.

 

[Jose Fly]

What part of "loss of genetic material does not evolution make" are you having difficulty with? Selection has to select from what already exists. See? Easy mnemonic.

Again you're attempting to comment on an experiment, even though you have no idea how that experiment is carried out.

Not only that, but since when did gains or losses of "genetic information" become the criterion for whether or not evolution has occurred? Did you guys just make that up off the top of your heads? And it's especially amusing given that 6days previously admitted he doesn't know how "genetic information" could even be measured.

Since I stated that evolution is a commonly observed fact and cited a common experiment that demonstrates it, you and 6days have been scrambling around, stomping your little feet, and coming up with every excuse you can think of to justify your denial of observed reality. As bizarre as it's been, I gotta say, it's also extremely entertaining to watch.

 

[6days]

No one has said "natural selection creates". That's the rule of mutations.

So mutations are the hero of your plot? They created the code? Mutations and selection can create even a 'simple' protein? Mutations can turn a molecule into a molecular biologist?

Your knowlege of genetics is not as deep as your blind belief in evolutionism. Natural selection eliminates. Mutations destroy or alter a pre-existing genetic code.

 

[Jose Fly]

So mutations are the hero of your plot? They created the code? Mutations and selection can create even a 'simple' protein? Mutations can turn a molecule into a molecular biologist?

Well, where do you think new traits and abilities come from?

Mutations destroy or alter a pre-existing genetic code.

Of course they alter the genetic code.....that's the definition of "mutation". :duh:

 

[6days]

So mutations are the hero of your plot? They created the code? Mutations and selection can create even a 'simple' protein? Mutations can turn a molecule into a molecular biologist?

Well, where do you think new traits and abilities come from?

You dodged the questions.
I have traits and abilities my parents don't have. They have traits and abilities I don't have. Those traits and abilities originate from pre-existing genetic information.

Mutations destroy or alter a pre-existing genetic code.

Of course they alter the genetic code.....that's the definition of "mutation".

Wow... progress. You partially agreed!! But, you forgot to mention that mutations destroy or alter a pre-existing genetic code.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

I'm sorry that I haven't gotten on here as often as I'd like. I'm fighting a growing email problem. I get 30-40 of them a day. It takes longer to 'unsubscribe' them than delete them. I've got Windows 10, so I can probably just cast them all out as spam. But some I want to keep, especially the ones that have interesting news in them.

I do see that DavisBJ and Silent Hunter have been staying away. Good! They both got banned and hopefully that scared them away. Things have been very nice here, but if the bullies return, we shall overcome.

Well, you might notice that I make more paragraphs now than I used to. Before I used to 'run everything together,' but evidently that made me seem 'bipolar,' as Silent would say {rambling}. I don't like to keep making new paragraphs every time I change directions a bit. Whatever. I just think that the posts are so much LONGER when I make new paragraphs each time. That is why I did what I did. You can be sure that I didn't write my book that way. I guess I'll stick with making paragraphs more often and not be so concerned about the post's length.

You and Rosenritter are doing a marvelous job of things here. I'm not gone, so don't think that. I will try to post every night, as is possible. Got to get rid of this email problem. I think that a lot of companies sell your email address to other companies as a rule or something.

Well, will get back to you. You all be sure to keep me informed on how you are doing. You know that you can always PM me. I'm not very good at getting Visitor Messages. I still have trouble figuring out to find them and other things about them also.

May God Be The Food You Ingest!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Rosenritter,

Don't ever think I've forgotten you either!! You are a splendid and awesome friend and ally here on this Creation Thread. I'm so glad that you decided to help out here. You would NEVER notice that you were a NEWBIE!! You do better than some who've been here for years. You've got a good heart, mind and spirit!! You're quite an asset here and I'm proud of you & 6days, to be sure!! I sure can't wait until Jesus returns!!!

May God Increase Your Countenance Fourfold,

Michael

 

[Jose Fly]

You dodged the questions.

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't realize "So mutations are the hero of your plot?" was a serious effort at a real question on your part.

To answer then....no, I do not consider mutations to be a hero in a plot.

I have traits and abilities my parents don't have. They have traits and abilities I don't have. Those traits and abilities originate from pre-existing genetic information.

What does "pre-existing genetic information" mean? Does your genome differ from your parents'? If so, how did you acquire different genetic sequences, if not via mutation?

Wow... progress. You partially agreed!! But, you forgot to mention that mutations destroy or alter a pre-existing genetic code.

What do you mean "destroy"? Are you referring to deletions?

 

[gcthomas]

The pictures do vary a little. They aren't photographs. But the parts that are the same are the ratios of the bodies to legs to necks. Are you suggesting that the conglomerate image looks like a lion to you?

They are certainly only convincing dinosaurs to someone who is already convinced they are dinosaurs. I asked for some clear evidence, and all you have shown so far are 15000 fake stones collected by a gullible tourist from the entrepreneurial locals, some footprints that even creationists admit are probably dino prints, and some Egyptian carvings that look for all the world like lionesses with long necks.

Five toed human footprints in dino strata would be good, or human bones in a dino gut, or even a thoroughly fossilised human skull. Anatomically correct drawings of dinosaurs on verified ancient pottery or cave walls. Something that doesn't require a level of gullibility to believe.

 

[Rosenritter]

They are certainly only convincing dinosaurs to someone who is already convinced they are dinosaurs. I asked for some clear evidence, and all you have shown so far are 15000 fake stones collected by a gullible tourist from the entrepreneurial locals, some footprints that even creationists admit are probably dino prints, and some Egyptian carvings that look for all the world like lionesses with long necks.

Five toed human footprints in dino strata would be good, or human bones in a dino gut, or even a thoroughly fossilised human skull. Anatomically correct drawings of dinosaurs on verified ancient pottery or cave walls. Something that doesn't require a level of gullibility to believe.

First, your dismissals seem to be mandated by necessity rather than objectivity. I see (and so could anyone that would look) the five-toed footprint fossils from that same strata that you are saying only contains dinosaur footprints. That "Beverly" track looks pretty distinctive to me. http://www.rae.org/pdf/paluxyphoto.pdf Likewise, your labeling of "fake" can be easily predicted for anything upsetting your apple cart. So here's some more to add in, maybe your voice will wear out protesting "fake" as it comes from many angles.

Bhuddist temple in Cambodia:

St. George's chapel in Barcelona, Spain:

From Bolivia:

Thailand

France

With so many depictions of dragons from around the world, one might conclude that these people had seen dragons. That is, if one were being objective and weren't required to defend "dinosaurs and men never saw each other" to the death, as I understand some feel the obligation to maintain.