|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| But eventually, after GAGILLIONS of non-mutations, BAJILLIONS of mutations that led nowhere |
Actually no. There were not "bajillions of mutations that led nowhere. it was not a case of trial and error, there were no other mutations detected.
It was a case of shuffle the bag then reach in and get the red ball first time, first try.
As we see in other organisms with adaptive mutations.
There's no luck, randomness, or chance involved. The organisms are able to deliberately genetically engineer themselves. This is evidence of design, of intelligence behind what these creatures are doing. Similar to the wall lizards. It goes against evolution. Which postulates random chance mutations. That its all by happy accident. But of course you'll just stick your head in the sand and close your eyes and hope it all goes away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I get it. All your other exhibits have been comprehensively debunked so youve wheeled out the few you have left?
| pucciniphile wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
| So where are the intermediates then? You go from microbe to fish without any intermediates? |
In Cambrian times, there appears the cephalochordate, or amphioxus, which possessed a flexible notochord rather than a backbone. [McGowan 1984: 74-78; Strahler 1987: 405-406; Zindler 1990]Today, all vertebrate embryos develop a notochord which later changes into a backbone (Trott 1999a, 1999b).
Incidentally, you can add the amphioxus to your list of species which don't evolve, because this species is living today.
In Ordovician times, there appeared the first bony fish, known as ostracoderms (Saladin 1988).
In Silurian times appeared the first jawed vertebrates, from which sharks, skates, rays, and chimaeras seem to be descended (Zincler 1990).
McGowan, C. 1984. In the beginning: A scientist shows why the Creationists are wrong. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Saladin, K. S. 1988. Saladin-Gish debate, May 10, 1988 at Auburn University, Auburn, AL: Opening statement for the negative.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ken_saladin/saladin-gish2/gish1.html
Trott, R. 1999a. Duane Gish and Creationism: Richard Trott critiques Duane Gish's presentation at Rutgers University. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers.html
_____. 1999b. Lying for Jesus: Duane Gish, InterVarsity, and Creationism at Rutgers. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers/gish-draft.txt
Zindler, F. 1990. Is Creationism science? A debate between Duane Gish and Frank Zindler. Aired during the evening of January 11, 1990 on "Night Talk."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/gish-zindler/gish-zindler.html |
Why would I even bother to go the effort of knocking over these strawmen when you've already distinguished yourself as an exemplary fabricator of misleading and subtly deceptive lies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
There's no luck, randomness, or chance involved. The organisms are able to deliberately genetically engineer themselves. This is evidence of design, of intelligence behind what these creatures are doing. Similar to the wall lizards. It goes against evolution. Which postulates random chance mutations. That its all by happy accident. |
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that you don't understand evolution. "Happy accident" certainly plays a large part in evolution, but your understanding completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
| Junior wrote: |
But of course you'll just stick your head in the sand and close your eyes and hope it all goes away.
|
Sounds like creationist thinking to me.
You see something, cannot explain it, and attribute a supernatural cause (ie. intelligent designer) to it. When someone tells you "Hey, I've got an explanation which does not require a supernatural explanation" you proceed to ... well... bury your head in the sand.
Very close-minded of you.
I'll post the link again on open-mindedness. And hey, it's a video. Only takes a couple minutes and no reading.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Except the oldest single-celled fossils predate the oldest fully-formed animal fossils by a good 2 billion plus years. Surely the commonality of bacteria can't account for such a discrepancy. |
So where are the intermediates then? You go from microbe to fish without any intermediates?
What gives you the right to ay that one came from the other, when there are no intermediates.?
And when the fish hasn't "evolved" since it was discovered?
What you're claiming is that everything evolved behind the scenes so thats why we have no evidence for it? |
If there's no evidence for the theory of evolution, why do you, and creation scientists in general, spend more time trying to discredit evolution (the very OP of this thread) than you do putting forth evidence for your own theory?
The answer of course is that there actually is evidence for evolutionary theory. If there weren't, you wouldn't have to spend all that time denying it.
| Junior wrote: |
Secondly the rocks are "dated" by the fossils found in them. Duh!  Its called circular reasoning. |
Often they are, and then when they do the radiometric dating - which you'd falsely have us believe no one even does anymore - their results are most often as expected. If you date a layer of rock, it's a safe bet that the fossils in that layer are from the same time period. Do you buy a new car every time you go to the supermarket on the extreme off chance the last one has developed some fatal flaw in the last five kilometers?
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Please don't drag out Austin's thoroughly discredited paper against radiometric dating. |
"Discredited" by who? Evolutionists by any chance? What a surprise. |
Discredited by common sense. Austin sent certain rock samples to a lab that specifically stated it could not date that type of rock. He then declared radiometric dating faulty based on the unsurprising fact that their results were inconsistent. It doesn't take a scientist to see the fault in his logic.
| Junior wrote: |
| The theory that people are oppressed in North Korea was also discredited by members of Kim Jong Il's inner circle. |
Let's all do the Junior's invisible-conspiracy dance!
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| "Just because we don't have evidence for it, doesn't mean it isn't true." while true, is certainly not evidence for anything. |
That doesn't stop Evolution theory being entirely built on it though does it ?. |
So, you agree with me that your logic - that you just used to defend creationism - is faulty, then (falsely) accuse evolutionary theory of making the same argument. At this point I am no longer even remotely surprised that you fail at basic logic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterblob wrote: |
| The answer of course is that there actually is evidence for evolutionary theory. If there weren't, you wouldn't have to spend all that time denying it. |
I spend time disproving it because most people out there don't realise what unmitigated garbage it is.. usually the average person has simply never bothered to investigate or question it. They just accept it out of peer pressure. because it is socially fashionable to do so.
| Quote: |
| then when they do the radiometric dating - - their results are most often as expected. |
usually the results are wildly different each time. They just get a selection of random dates then choose the one that fits their theory.
| Quote: |
| their results are most often as expected. |
*North korean government surveys most often find that NK is the richest country on earth.
| Quote: |
| Austin sent certain rock samples to a lab that specifically stated it could not date that type of rock. |
Why did they go ahead and date it then..if they were "unable to do so"?
Your "scientist" buffoons dated a piece of lava formed in 1986 as 350000 years old. lol.
As far as the scientific community goes, evolutionists are in the same group as alternative medicine quacks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| I get it. All your other exhibits have been comprehensively debunked so youve wheeled out the few you have left? |
| Quote: |
| Why would I even bother to go the effort of knocking over these strawmen when you've already distinguished yourself as an exemplary fabricator of misleading and subtly deceptive lies? |
Ooooooh, you got me, Junior!
There's nothing I can say to that.
I give up. You win.
God created fish out of thin air, and I really knew it all along.
I just pretended not to because I didn't want to believe in God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| They just accept it out of peer pressure. because it is socially fashionable to do so. |
I sure as heck didn't embrace Evolutionary out of peer pressure.
I was living in the county seat of a rural county in Tennessee.
The city population was 900 and the county population was 6000.
The county averaged one church for every 20 families.
It was right in the heart of the Bible belt!
You think there was peer pressure to embrace Evolutionary theory there?
Hardly!
| Quote: |
| *North korean government surveys most often find that NK is the richest ountry on earth. |
Godwin's Law again!
Another name for this is the argumentum ad Hitlerum.
I'm not sure I like that name because Latin and German don't mix very well.
| Quote: |
| Austin sent certain rock samples to a lab that specifically stated it could not date that type of rock. |
| Quote: |
Why did they go ahead and date it then..if they were "unable to do so"?
Your "scientist" buffoons dated a piece of lava formed in 1986 as 350000 years old. lol. |
As I recall, we had a round of this on the earlier thread.
Underwaterbob, do you remember that?
Junior will stop at nothing to dig up dirt on Evolutionists.
Last edited by pucciniphile on Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Brento, your scenario of nylon bugs having a picnic was entertaining and easy to understand, but I still don't think Junior gets it.
Let me try.
Junior, Evolution is not a matter of majority rule.
Brento is not arguing that it is probable that an ancient lineage would develop a taste for nylon. Neither am I. Neither is anyone else.
If I understand Brento correctly, he is arguing that out of the oodlums of microbes, one of them DID develop a taste for nylon.
Since there is plenty of nylon around, that one microbe multiplied.
Now for another analogy:
In classical music circles, we hear the names of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven mentioned over and over again.
This is not a matter of majority rule either, because those are just three out of hundreds of composers who have lived, most of whom we never even hear about.
Fugues are extremely difficult to write. It is improbable that a composition student would become expert in writing fugues, much less improvising fugues. But one such composer happened to be born, which is why Bach is celebrated today.
It is improbable that a composer could ever be intelligent enough to write out an entire new composition from memory, without making a single erasure. But one such composer happened to be born, which is why Mozsart is celebrated today.
It is improbable that a composer could know music theory well enough to compose a masterpiece after turning completely deaf. one such composer happened to be born, which is why Beethoven is celebrated today.
A music student learns mostly the work of renowned composers. Most of us never even know what the majority of classical music has been like. For all we know, it could have been lousy. But we never bother to learn the run-of-the-mill music because of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. Just as the nylon manufactures are providing a feast for the nylon bugs, Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven are providing a feast for us.
Just as there have been oodlums of composers who didn't make it, there have been oodlums of organisms that didn't make it.
At first, dark colored bears who got caught on the wrong side of the glacier. Only the lighter bears survived, because they were less easily visible by their prey. Never mind whether those lighter bears got 10% of the votes or 90% of the votes. They won anyway.
At first, there were probably light skinned people in Africa. If there were, they got burned to a crisp before they could reach child-bearing age. Never mind whether the darker skinned people got 10% of the votes or 90% of the votes. They won anyway.
I would also like to make sure that Junior understands that genes are not good or bad, but rather fit or unfit. There may have deep sea animals born with legs. If there were, the style didn't catch on because legs are no good in the deep sea. There may have been land animals born with fins. If there were, the style didn't catch on because fins are no good on land.
Who knows, there may have been nylon bugs before the invention of nylon. If there were, they starved to death because they couldn't find any nylon. It's the nylon bugs living today that thrive, because those nylon bugs are fit for the environment which exists today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Underwaterblob wrote: |
| The answer of course is that there actually is evidence for evolutionary theory. If there weren't, you wouldn't have to spend all that time denying it. |
I spend time disproving it because most people out there don't realise what unmitigated garbage it is.. usually the average person has simply never bothered to investigate or question it. They just accept it out of peer pressure. because it is socially fashionable to do so. |
Last time I checked, creationism believers were the majority in the US. I'm pretty sure this hasn't changed.
Next post, Junior quotes the above sentence and says "See! If so many people believe in it, it must be true!"
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| then when they do the radiometric dating - - their results are most often as expected. |
usually the results are wildly different each time. They just get a selection of random dates then choose the one that fits their theory. |
Is the conclusion of Austin's discredited, disingenuous paper. There is no other "evidence" to support this conclusion.
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| their results are most often as expected. |
*North korean government surveys most often find that NK is the richest country on earth. |
Until you give us evidence of this conspiracy, these comments remain little more than conjecture and ad-hom attacks.
| Junior wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Austin sent certain rock samples to a lab that specifically stated it could not date that type of rock. |
Why did they go ahead and date it then..if they were "unable to do so"? |
If you agree with me that Austin's method was disingenuous, then does it matter what their reasons for doing so were? Anyhow, they were paid to do so. And, in order for the rock to be dated properly, it must come from certain rock formations. You can't tell what formation a sample came from by looking at it.
| Junior wrote: |
| Your "scientist" buffoons dated a piece of lava formed in 1986 as 350000 years old. lol. |
Yes, because the lab was unequipped to deal with that sample.
| Junior wrote: |
| As far as the scientific community goes, evolutionists are in the same group as alternative medicine quacks. |
Except, y'know, that bit about 99.9% of scientists accepting evolutionary theory.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pucciniphile wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Austin sent certain rock samples to a lab that specifically stated it could not date that type of rock. |
| Quote: |
Why did they go ahead and date it then..if they were "unable to do so"?
Your "scientist" buffoons dated a piece of lava formed in 1986 as 350000 years old. lol. |
As I recall, we had a round of this on the earlier thread.
Underwaterbob, do you remember that?
Junior will stop at nothing to dig up dirt on Evolutionists. |
Quite. These are Junior's same old turkeys we've been dealing with across hundreds of pages of thread:
Sarfati's unfounded "all change is loss" argument against micro-evolution. Austin's ridiculous "I sent my piano to the garage for tuning, and now it's out of tune" argument against radiometric dating. Wells' brilliantly observational "some examples of evolution in outdated textbooks are out of date" argument against evolution. Behe's illogical "I can't see how this could have evolved, so it can't have evolved" argument. Some mystical, science conspiracy, our (imagined by him) blinding hatred of god and a new-found love for inappropriate North Korean metaphors.
In fact I'm pretty sure I could just cut and paste a sentence or two out of that paragraph as responses for all of his posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
As far as the scientific community goes, evolutionists are in the same group as alternative medicine quacks. |
For some, the Earth will always be flat and the round-Earthers will always be a 'fringe minority'.
I for one advocate for a fully privatized education system. When caring parents send their child to a Creationist school and that student enters the workforce, employers will know exactly what to expect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pucciniphile wrote: |
| Quote: |
| *North korean government surveys most often find that NK is the richest ountry on earth. |
Godwin's Law again!
Another name for this is the argumentum ad Hitlerum.
I'm not sure I like that name because Latin and German don't mix very well. |
Mixes better than Latin and Korean, though, right?
On the nylon bug, as much as I appreciate Bach's fugues, I think you guys are talking past each other. Junior's claim seems to be that there were no other mutations detected, so that it's pretty remarkable and apparently non-random for this to be the first mutation to occur. (I don't know if this claim is correct, and I would like to see some documentation of it myself.)
btw, your friend Wormwood doesn't have much time to figure me out, as I'll be going back to the US in a few weeks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| As far as the scientific community goes, evolutionists are in the same group as alternative medicine quacks. |
Say whaaaaaaat?
I think you made a mistake with that sentence. Take out the word "evolutionists" and replace it with "creationists" to fix the sentence.
You need to listen to "Skeptic's Guide to the Universe" podcast, Junior. Or every other skeptical source of media out there. You'd know that creationists and alternative medicine quacks are grouped in the same group of uncritical, non-skeptical, completely biased, non-thinkers. (again, see that video on open-mindedness and get back to me on what you think about it)
Let's look at three examples how your quote above is so dead-wrong, it completely describes creationism (rather than evolution)
1)
Scientific medicine = uses scientific method
Alternative medicine = no scientific evidence can prove it works
Scientific studies on evolutionary biology = uses scientific method
Creation "theories" = no scientific evidence can prove it is real
2)
Real doctors, real pharmacists = respected in the medical community
Quack doctors = not respected in the medical community, except for their own kind and their brainwashed followers
Real biologists, real paleontologists = respected in the scientific community
Creationists = not respected in the scientific community, except for their own kind and their brainwashed followers
3)
Alternative medicine = what they used to cure people before they figured out the whole science thingy
Scientific medicine = the medicine that came as we figured out the whole science thingy
Creationism = what they used to explain stuff before they figured out the whole science thingy
Theory of Evolution = what they now use to explain stuff thanks to figuring out the whole science thingy
4)
Alternative medicine = God will heal you. Just have faith.
Scientific medicine = This medicine will heal you. The scientific evidence proves it will.
Creationist = God created man. Just have faith.
Evolutionary biologist = The theory of evolution describes how mankind evolved from apes. Observable evidence proves it.
5)
Alternative medicine = Mumbo-bumbo wookha-booka! You're cured!
Scientific medicine = Take this penicillin. You have a good chance of being cured.
Creationist = I know creationism is correct. It's in the Bible!
Doctor = I know scientific medicine is correct. Observable evidence shows it.
I could provide more examples, but I think I made my point... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brento wrote: |
Scientific medicine = uses scientific method
Alternative medicine = no scientific evidence can prove it works |
First up, idle evolutionary speculation amounts to little more than biased, unsubstantiated opinion. It just ain't on the same level as scientific medicine. Sorry. if you think it is, then we better group snoopy with the collected works of shakespeare.
| Quote: |
| Scientific studies on evolutionary biology = uses scientific method |
What scientific method is involved in speculating that whales descended from mouse deer because the later has been observed to enjoy bathing in puddles? Yes...that really is how ridiculous you and your tribe of apemen have become.
| Quote: |
| Creation "theories" = no scientific evidence can prove it is real |
...yet all the evidence fits the creation account. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pucciniphile
Joined: 23 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What scientific method is involved in speculating that whales descended from mouse deer because the later has been observed to enjoy bathing in puddles? |
So you know of a claim that whales are descended from mouse deer,
and the only argument given is that mouse deer has been observed to enjoy bathing in puddles!
That's interesting.
Please give us some documentation, so we can explore this further. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
