:up:Granite said:Sorry about the digression.
:up:Granite said:Sorry about the digression.
I am pretty sure all these shows with Walt were pre-recorded so they could do them all at once.Johnny said:What time is Bob's show today? I'd like to call in. I just glanced at kgov.com and didn't see a time posted.
Edit: NM, weekdays at 5pm Est. Anyone know if he's actually going to take calls or if he's devoting all his airtime to Walt.
I don't think so because they are playing all the pre-recorded Walt Brown shows this week. It seems to me that Bob said something about Friday being the day for people to call in about the Walt Brown shows. Maybe Bob will clarify if he sees this post.Johnny said:Thanks Knight. No calls today I take it.
Nice try Pastor Bob but I expect you realize that I was looking for some specific citations to those experiments which were attempts to make a scale into a feather, a leg into a wing or increase the chambers in a heart. Dr. Brown stated that there were "all sorts" of experiments trying to do that.Bob Enyart said:Here's what Walt Brown said that Jukia questioned...Macro-evolution involves increases in complexity, like a leg evolving into a wing, or scales evolving into a feather, or a one-chamber heart evolving from a who-knows-what, or a two-chamber heart evolving from a one chamber heart. ... That's [an example of] macro-evolution, and its never been observed, and there have been all sorts of experiments trying to cause it to happen.Jukia asked Walt Brown to provide "citations to the scientific literature to at least several of these experiments."
Jukia, haven't you heard of decades of breeding experiments based upon Darwinian notions, experiments which have failed, with fruitflies, bacteria, etc., and breeding efforts to cross the barriers of a species, barriers which the breeders continually banged into and couldn't cross.
Since Walt doesn't post here, let me provide citations for him:
See:
1) 20th-century science
2) Late 19th-century science
-Bob Enyart
Gee, sorry for the obfuscation. But I think you missed the point of my question. You stated that the evolutonist claim is that a certain organ or limb developed because of a "need". I do not believe that is a claim evolutionists make nor a claim that stratnerd made. It appears a bit Lamarckian. Or perhaps a bit "directed". I think the broad outlines of evolutionary theory avoid the term "need" in that sense.Bob Enyart said:Jukia,
It seems that when an evolutionist on TOL says, "Oh yeah, what evolutionist ever said that?" all you have to do is search their own posts for an example. That happened in a really funny way with Stratnerd right here in this forum.
See http://theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1187953&postcount=3 (and also post 5).http://theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1187953&postcount=3(and also post 5).
Perhaps these ideas might sound remotely, vaguely familiar to you:
1. Evolution is faster during times of great environmental upheaval, like after an asteriod impact, so that species can survive.
2. Giraffes evolved long necks because...
3. About 20 million biology textbooks have shown graphics of creatures jumping off tree branches trying to dine on flying insects, so they eventually grew wings to meet their nutritional needs.
4 - 6,728 ... etc., etc., etc.
I know it's all inane, but hey, it's evolution.
So, I just don't have the time to search your posts, Jukia, to find you saying what you've suggested no evolutionist has ever said, but it's happens so often (I know I only gave one example, that's because I only searched ONCE to find such an example), I wouldn't be surprised if you're guilty yourself. What a silly obfuscation you've offered. Ha! Ever hear of evolution being based upon survival of the fittest?
-Bob Enyart
Joe Meert appears to be an associate professor of Geology at the University of Florida.Knight said:Looks real credible Granite. :chuckle:
Boy, you guys are masters of these kind of word games. We literal-minded, unsuspicious scientists don't have a chance!Bob Enyart said:Jukia,
It seems that when an evolutionist on TOL says, "Oh yeah, what evolutionist ever said that?" all you have to do is search their own posts for an example. That happened in a really funny way with Stratnerd right here in this forum.
See http://theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1187953&postcount=3 (and also post 5).http://theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1187953&postcount=3(and also post 5).
Perhaps these ideas might sound remotely, vaguely familiar to you:
1. Evolution is faster during times of great environmental upheaval, like after an asteriod impact, so that species can survive.
2. Giraffes evolved long necks because...
3. About 20 million biology textbooks have shown graphics of creatures jumping off tree branches trying to dine on flying insects, so they eventually grew wings to meet their nutritional needs.
4 - 6,728 ... etc., etc., etc.
I know it's all inane, but hey, it's evolution.
So, I just don't have the time to search your posts, Jukia, to find you saying what you've suggested no evolutionist has ever said, but it's happens so often (I know I only gave one example, that's because I only searched ONCE to find such an example), I wouldn't be surprised if you're guilty yourself. What a silly obfuscation you've offered. Ha! Ever hear of evolution being based upon survival of the fittest?
-Bob Enyart
Etc.Jukia said:Nice try Pastor Bob but I expect you realize that I was looking for some specific citations to those experiments which were attempts to make a scale into a feather, a leg into a wing or increase the chambers in a heart. Dr. Brown stated that there were "all sorts" of experiments trying to do that.
Name one if you can.
Just more dishonesty.
Brown's statements were nonsense.
Jukia, I think I recall you challenging me on this very issue perhaps more than a year ago, even to the particular of you incorporating where you live. Feel free to search TOL or the web and report back with your own informed, reasonable estimate of the average depth of sedimentary layers on the continents. It'll be good seeing that expression of the aftermath of the worldwide being posted by an evolutionist!Jukia said:Do you have a reply to my questions regarding the mile of sediments all around the earth and my specific questions regarding New England, Mt. Everest or the Rockies?
Bob Enyart said:Etc.
Jukia, perhaps your very bad attitude makes it difficult for you to listen objectively.
Jefferson said:* Can a Leg Evolve into a Wing: Regarding survival of the fittest, with the force of a sledge hammer, natural selection would obliterate any reptile species whose leg started to evolve into a wing, because it would have very bad legs long before it had good wings.
* Evidence Against Millions of Years: C-14 appears in everything tested that is "millions of years old;" today's bacteria is just like that from "220-million year-old" amber, and living bacteria has been found in "million-year-old" fossilized bees; the continents would erode in 25 million years, yet "far-older" fossils are in the mountains; the Earth is missing billions-of-years worth of missing volcanic matter; the Earth is missing millions of years worth of impacts, since meteorites have only hit shallow strata. Etc.
Well yeah, Pastor Bob, my question was exactly that---"What experiments was Dr. Brown referring to, when he claims on the broadcast starting about 6:15 into it that 'all sorts of experiments trying to cause it (the dreaded macroevolution) to happen' eg. a leg into a wing, a scale into feathers and more chambers in a heart have been attempted and never worked.Bob Enyart said:Etc.
Jukia, perhaps your very bad attitude makes it difficult for you to listen objectively. Walt was indicating that there have been "all sorts of experiments trying to cause it [macro evolution] to happen."
What experiments did Walt refer to? Darwinists have gone to great lenghts to induce change to demonstrate macro-evolution. Did that include experiments to go from scales to feathers, one chamber to two? No, of course not. It's funny how Walt Brown can present so many powerful arguments (like a leg will be a bad leg, long before it becomes a good wing), and you will find something silly to obfuscate over. I take your harsh rebuke of me over this as a many-worded translation from Jukian for our English word, "Ouch!"
Specifically, as I explained, Walt was referring to, "breeding experiments based upon Darwinian notions, experiments which have failed, with fruitflies, bacteria, etc., and breeding efforts to cross the barriers of a species, barriers which the breeders continually banged into and couldn't cross."
And regarding:
Jukia, I think I recall you challenging me on this very issue perhaps more than a year ago, even to the particular of you incorporating where you live. Feel free to search TOL or the web and report back with your own informed, reasonable estimate of the average depth of sedimentary layers on the continents. It'll be good seeing that expression of the aftermath of the worldwide being posted by an evolutionist!
-Bob Enyart
Bob Enyart said:Instead, why not reply to Walt's simple challenge, which devastates much of the theory of evolution, that a leg will be a bad leg long before it becomes a good wing.
Go ahead, take a whack at it .
-Bob Enyart
BB: You are correct. It is incredible. But it happened incredible or not.BillyBob said:That doesn't hold much mystery. First of all, wings are not former legs, they are former 'arms' [see attached picture of a bat skeleton]. There are plenty of animals that have both legs and wings simultaniously and many of those species find only limited use for their legs [ever see a penguin walk?].
What I find much more puzzling is how animals became specie specific. For example, how did bird ancestors evolve into the many vastly different and specialized species we see today. While I can postulate the answer, it is still incredible to me.
Well, let's see. What exactly did Darwin's theory consist of?Bob Enyart said:Jukia, you claim that, "the broad outlines of evolutionary theory avoid" the concept of "need."
I know you 'overlook' my posts (including no doubt this one, but what the heck), so I'll repeat this part of an earlier post:Bob Enyart said:Do those broad outlines also avoid hink the concept of "survival," or "survival of the fittest?"
Well, as BillyBob pointed out, Walt's probably right, a leg will probably be a bad leg long before it becomes a good wing, which is probably why there aren't any examples of wings evolving from legs! Yes, forelimbs can be known as forelegs, but Walt's argument - well, it's more of an assertion than an argument - doesn't apply to all forelimbs.Bob Enyart said:Here again you've demonstrated the obfuscation that evolutionists so often practice. Instead, why not reply to Walt's simple challenge, which devastates much of the theory of evolution, that a leg will be a bad leg long before it becomes a good wing.
Go ahead, take a whack at it .
-Bob Enyart
Sorry, this was worth repeating for an entirely different reason. It is a near-perfect encapsulation of the archetypal creationist ploy:Bob Enyart said:Here again you've demonstrated the obfuscation that evolutionists so often practice. Instead, why not reply to Walt's simple challenge, which devastates much of the theory of evolution, that a leg will be a bad leg long before it becomes a good wing.
Go ahead, take a whack at it .
-Bob Enyart