Page 3 of 4
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:56 am
by Zenith
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
1) Actually quite false. Fossil record shows sudden appearance and statis, it does not show gradual change over time.
2) Design fits the evidence you present in #2, so it's not evidence for evolution quite.
3) Isn't this quite possibly an argument from ignorance? And circular reasoning?
4) The hip bones are required for reproduction...this is utter nonsense once again.
5) Blah blah blah this is nonsense again. My goodness, I keep on seeing this junk.
1) This is only because of the nature of fossilization. there has been much geological process during the time that fossils have been in the ground. many have been destroyed. even still, it is very rare that conditions are met to preserve a skeletal remain as a fossil, especially for as long as a lot of the fossils that have been found. this means that the fossil record only shows a tiny percentage of the total number of organisms that lived on this planet. and the appearance that they suddenly came into existence is largely due to geological processes at the time (such as a volcano melting remains, or a glacier picking them up and moving them or destroying them altogether).
2) granted, but evolution is based on a concept we can see in the real world. creationism is a concept that is completely man-made (well, at least there is no evidence of it being otherwise).
3) never seemed to stop you before. but seriously, it does make more sense from an evolutionary perspective. what is the reasoning behind creating such a creature?
4) absolute garbage. hip-bones are not required for reproduction. when was the last time you saw a jellyfish with hip-bones. or a fly? or a shark? once again, it is your words that are nonsense. do you even try anymore?
5) 'Blah blah blah this is nonsense again. My goodness, I keep on seeing this junk.'
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:36 am
by AttentionKMartShoppers
1) This is only because of the nature of fossilization. there has been much geological process during the time that fossils have been in the ground. many have been destroyed. even still, it is very rare that conditions are met to preserve a skeletal remain as a fossil, especially for as long as a lot of the fossils that have been found. this means that the fossil record only shows a tiny percentage of the total number of organisms that lived on this planet. and the appearance that they suddenly came into existence is largely due to geological processes at the time (such as a volcano melting remains, or a glacier picking them up and moving them or destroying them altogether).
So, you're saying that all the transitional fossils were destroyed...based on the assumption that evolution is in fact true. I love this. This is why evolution isn't falsifiable and not science. You interpret evidence assuming evolution is true.
2) granted, but evolution is based on a concept we can see in the real world. creationism is a concept that is completely man-made (well, at least there is no evidence of it being otherwise).
Really? Where can we see this in the real world? And why are you bringing up creationism?
3) never seemed to stop you before. but seriously, it does make more sense from an evolutionary perspective. what is the reasoning behind creating such a creature?
Just because we don't know the purpose doesn't mean there isn't one.
4) absolute garbage. hip-bones are not required for reproduction. when was the last time you saw a jellyfish with hip-bones. or a fly? or a shark? once again, it is your words that are nonsense. do you even try anymore?
I was mistaken.."
Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called 'remnants' are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution.17 As with the allegedly functionless limbs of Basilosaurus, we should not assume that ignorance of a function means there is no function. "
Wrong bones I was thinking about. But what is your problem? Whiney little brat.
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:41 am
by AttentionKMartShoppers
And to BeCool:
If I remove frames from a movie and blow them up all I show is sudden apearance and stasis, no?
Must you talk nonsense?
Why use a different part for the same function? Why a different size screw for each door hinge?
Why not?
Sharks don't have hip bones. Neither do Tuna. Sea Turtles do however. The only commonality is that turtles and whales both breathe air. I suppose the hip bone is to help them breathe.
As I told zenith, wrong bones, woops. And once again, why are you bringing other animals into this? Isn't this about whales?
Macro and micro is one and the same. Many small changes over time accumulate no?
Says who?
If I have a elephants and I strand them on a small island you think over time that they will shrink in size?
Given that individuals predisposed genetically to smaller size will be healthier due to fewer caloric intake requirements.
Because animals can shrink in size (possibly)...therefore all animals evolved from a common ancestor. Yep, good one. You got me.
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:34 pm
by BGoodForGoodSake
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:And to BeCool:
If I remove frames from a movie and blow them up all I show is sudden apearance and stasis, no?
Must you talk nonsense?
I need to speak in your language so that you can understand me.
A random snapshot is by definition going to show sudden change. It is up to those investigating to fill in the missing peices.
The criminal makes his escape by fording a river. They officers a young man and an older cop, follow his tracks to the edge of the river. They search the other side for his tracks.
The younger one says, "Sir I beleive these to be his tracks."
"Don't be a fool son! The man who made these tracks only wore one shoe. Our guy wears a pair."
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Why use a different part for the same function? Why a different size screw for each door hinge?
Why not?
Gee, that makes sense, why... not... That explains everything!
I'll call up Ford right now and tell them that each model should use slightly different parts. For instance their screws should be red for the Mustang. For the GT they are red but also have a thread of silk down the side.
For the Taurus they should be extra long and stick out of the holes.
For the Explorer they sould be extra long and green.
Why are there patterns? For instance all parrots seem to be from the same mold and by the same technique all birds seem to from the same mold.
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Sharks don't have hip bones. Neither do Tuna. Sea Turtles do however. The only commonality is that turtles and whales both breathe air. I suppose the hip bone is to help them breathe.
As I told zenith, wrong bones, woops. And once again, why are you bringing other animals into this? Isn't this about whales?
Oh so we should just ignore the fact that whales seem to be more like dogs than they are like sharks?
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Macro and micro is one and the same. Many small changes over time accumulate no?
Says who?
What will an elephant look like if I kept shrinking its trunk as well?
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:If I have a elephants and I strand them on a small island you think over time that they will shrink in size?
Given that individuals predisposed genetically to smaller size will be healthier due to fewer caloric intake requirements.
Because animals can shrink in size (possibly)...therefore all animals evolved from a common ancestor. Yep, good one. You got me.
What more than size and shape is there to morphology? Remember a proteins function is a direct result of it's shape.
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:52 pm
by Zenith
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:So, you're saying that all the transitional fossils were destroyed...based on the assumption that evolution is in fact true. I love this. This is why evolution isn't falsifiable and not science. You interpret evidence assuming evolution is true.
no, i'm saying that almost all fossils were destroyed, or never became fossils because of known geological processes. it has nothing to do with evolution.
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Really? Where can we see this in the real world? And why are you bringing up creationism?
we can see that all organisms are different. we can see that simple organisms adapt to their environment through natural selection. we can see that each generation recombines existing genes. we know that recombination can create new traits in an organism.
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Just because we don't know the purpose doesn't mean there isn't one.
but we should assume that there isnt one without evidence of it, until we have that evidence. without making any kind of assumption, we cannot progress, even if that assumption is wrong. trust me, if it is wrong, science will figure it out eventually. there are enough varying minds in the scientific community to challenge any theory.
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I was mistaken.."
so you are human. i was wondering for a second there.
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Many evolutionists support whale evolution by alleging that there are vestigial hind legs buried in their flesh. However, these so-called 'remnants' are not useless at all, but help strengthen the reproductive organs—the bones are different in males and females. So they are best explained by creation, not evolution.17 As with the allegedly functionless limbs of Basilosaurus, we should not assume that ignorance of a function means there is no function. "
i would say they are explained by both evolution and creation, but neither one any more than the other. but i think it would be ignorant to think we should stop researching evolutionary ideas. every varying theory needs to be looked into. we cannot dismiss a theory based on philosophical bias. i support evolution because it needs to be supported, and i feel that it best explains the organic world around us. but i also see the need for creationist thought, though i think they should study it with more of a scientific method.
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:But what is your problem? Whiney little brat.
if you can't take what you dish out, don't dish it out. 'Do unto others as you would have them do to you' if you don't attack me, i won't attack you.
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:50 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
For some reason...the idea of replying seems about as absurd as building a computer out of jell-o
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:23 pm
by Zenith
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:For some reason...the idea of replying seems about as absurd as building a computer out of jell-o
could it be that you have nothing left to say? its ok, sometimes we are proven wrong. but dont think of it as failure, think of it as an eye-opening experience.
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:50 am
by BGoodForGoodSake
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:For some reason...the idea of replying seems about as absurd as building a computer out of jell-o
How about coffee?
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_19056168
Gingerbread?
http://www.envador.com/cases/GingerbreadPC/
Don't set limits on reality no reason to walk around with blinders on.
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:29 am
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Zenith wrote:AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:For some reason...the idea of replying seems about as absurd as building a computer out of jell-o
could it be that you have nothing left to say? its ok, sometimes we are proven wrong. but dont think of it as failure, think of it as an eye-opening experience.
Me? Proven wrong? With your stupidity and BGood's "imagine you're a butterfly on a warm night in August"? I don't think so.
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:30 am
by AttentionKMartShoppers
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:50 pm
by Zenith
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Zenith wrote:AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:For some reason...the idea of replying seems about as absurd as building a computer out of jell-o
could it be that you have nothing left to say? its ok, sometimes we are proven wrong. but dont think of it as failure, think of it as an eye-opening experience.
Me? Proven wrong? With your stupidity and BGood's "imagine you're a butterfly on a warm night in August"? I don't think so.
oh, right, you can't be proven wrong because you don't have any beliefs. all you do is shoot other people down without even explaining why. why don't you come up with a good reason to doubt me, instead of stagnating and spouting out the same crap over and over again. i'm not going to take you seriously just because you say i'm wrong. next time try writing more than a few poorly thrown together sentences that include little else than slander.
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:11 pm
by BGoodForGoodSake
Zenith wrote:AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Zenith wrote:AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:For some reason...the idea of replying seems about as absurd as building a computer out of jell-o
could it be that you have nothing left to say? its ok, sometimes we are proven wrong. but dont think of it as failure, think of it as an eye-opening experience.
Me? Proven wrong? With your stupidity and BGood's "imagine you're a butterfly on a warm night in August"? I don't think so.
oh, right, you can't be proven wrong because you don't have any beliefs. all you do is shoot other people down without even explaining why. why don't you come up with a good reason to doubt me, instead of stagnating and spouting out the same [poop] over and over again. i'm not going to take you seriously just because you say i'm wrong. next time try writing more than a few poorly thrown together sentences that include little else than slander.
Wow, KMart you have a knact for eliciting this type of response.
Were you a thorn in your past life?
=D
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:13 pm
by August
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Zenith wrote:AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Zenith wrote:AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:For some reason...the idea of replying seems about as absurd as building a computer out of jell-o
could it be that you have nothing left to say? its ok, sometimes we are proven wrong. but dont think of it as failure, think of it as an eye-opening experience.
Me? Proven wrong? With your stupidity and BGood's "imagine you're a butterfly on a warm night in August"? I don't think so.
oh, right, you can't be proven wrong because you don't have any beliefs. all you do is shoot other people down without even explaining why. why don't you come up with a good reason to doubt me, instead of stagnating and spouting out the same [poop] over and over again. i'm not going to take you seriously just because you say i'm wrong. next time try writing more than a few poorly thrown together sentences that include little else than slander.
Wow, KMart you have a knact for eliciting this type of response.
Were you a thorn in your past life?
=D
Maybe he just evolved from one....
If there are no more comments on the topic at hand, I will lock the thread so the namecalling can stop.
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:31 pm
by BGoodForGoodSake
August wrote:BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Wow, KMart you have a knact for eliciting this type of response.
Were you a thorn in your past life?
=D
Maybe he just evolved from one....
LOL
August wrote:If there are no more comments on the topic at hand, I will lock the thread so the namecalling can stop.
=(
I was only joking.
KMart knows that.
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:37 pm
by August
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:August wrote:BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Wow, KMart you have a knact for eliciting this type of response.
Were you a thorn in your past life?
=D
Maybe he just evolved from one....
LOL
August wrote:If there are no more comments on the topic at hand, I will lock the thread so the namecalling can stop.
=(
I was only joking.
KMart knows that.
I know you two have a thorny relationship. I was talking about Kmart and Zenith.