32
   

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 05:16 am
@Herald,
Quote:
You are talking as if you have proved already that the evolution is plausible, feasible and exists in the physical world ... and manipulate us by asking to prove whether it is working or not.


Whose US? anyway,

Plausible-yep
Evidenced -Yep
Falsifiable-yep
Interconnected-yep
Testable-yep
(Lets hear what you've got)

Your point about it being "feasible" is idiotic, .


Quote:
... and hardly after that, and not before, you can ask whoever about proofs whether the evolution is currently (and has been in the past) in operation or not.
I think science gets along quite well without "advice" from your lying mouth. Being a serial liar in order to "protect" your worldview has been a consistent tool you've used herein and Im just tired of you. Id think youd be ashamed of yourself at how you apply untruths and misrepresentations on behalf of a religious belief that celebrates truth; but no, you just stumble along making idiotic fraudulent assertions and pronouncements supported by utter nonsensical crap.

I loved how you just changed your entire false position on "Envenomation" and then, when caught, you just move on and try to act collegial continuing to make demands .

When you make up **** out of pure dust bunnies and try to throw it at me as if you have a clue, is insulting . I really don't mind inults when there is a passionate argument goind on between equals but, Ive given you three strikes with your serial lying . SO, its GAME OVER SONNY.

PS, whos the "WE" you speak of?











Romeo Fabulini
 
  0  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 07:15 am
When I bought Dawkins "Climbing Mount Improbable" some years ago I was expecting a detailed scientific talk-through of how creatures evolved step-by-step, but all I got was a collection of guesses and hunches.
For example here's Dawk's explanation of the evolution of flight-

"My guess is that both bats and birds evolved flight by gliding downwards from the trees.. Here’s one guess as to how flying got started in birds.. Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground while bats began gliding out of trees. Or perhaps birds too began by gliding out of trees" (pp. 113–4)
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 08:14 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
at least Dawkins wasn't lying or making believe he "knew without a doubt" or totally making up bullshit like our friend Herald is fond of doing.
Weve admitted several times that bat evolution isn't well understood because we have no good fossil evidence from earlier than the Eocene when the earliest bats seemed to show up in the fossil record. However, DNA of all insectivores living today, includes a great similarity among the big and small, so we have a pretty good idea by looking at the genetic characteristics of the entire living clade.

Bird flight is a bit more evidenced because the evolution of flight feathers have recently been discovered in several sequential (Time stratigraphic) units.
Flight feathers DID NOT just appear, they too evolved and we can see from evidence in the Liaoning beds the differentiation of these feather patterns from Dromeaosaurs to Eoaves.



0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 10:04 am
Dawkins seems to be lying about the eye, which he claims is "wired up back to front".
Biologists have pointed out to him that it only appears to be wired up back to front, and that if it was wired up the way he suggests, we'd all be blind!
Dunno if Dawks has corrected himself since then.

http://creation.com/seeing-back-to-front
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 10:28 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
don't know and really have no dog in the fight. Im not an anatomist and have no knowledge of the "wiring diagram".
Im sure that some biologist who understands the ocular anatomy well will take on whatever is the point of argument.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 10:34 am
@farmerman,
ALTHOUGH>>>>
     http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Evolution_eye.svg/400px-Evolution_eye.svg.png
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 10:35 am
@farmerman,
You wrote,
Quote:
THATS REALLY DIM. Perhaps you should just stay being a Creationist , youre unable to evaluate data of any kind


I think it's out of fear that they cannot accept what we have learned through science, because it will crumble their whole religion and belief system in their god. That is scary, and they will battle with their conscience until the day they die.

It's similar to asking them to accept the facts that will kill their god.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 02:02 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Plausible-yep

This is not a valid proof of plausibility.
In order to proof this ...-yep you have to show:
     - What is the material carrier of the encoding in the DNA sequence?
     - To show from where, when and how each bit of hereditary information is encoded into the DNA sequence ... and for what period of time? ... and is this time one and the same for all species?
     - Has the DNA sequence been the carrier of the bio-code for the whole period of existence of life on Earth - 3.8 billion years or so?
     - Why do the Crocodile order exhibit no signs of any evolution ... into any birds ... for a period of 228 million years? Do you want another example of species that have bypassed the evolution theory ... and have not evolved into anything for a period of 1 billion years?
     - How many billion years will you need to execute any evolutionary metamorphosis of the species ... or to notice in the end that there is something wrong with that theory?
     - You have to proof that the information needed for the development of life can be self-encoded spontaneously into a DNA sequence.
     - You have to proof that non-living matter can design living matter and breathe life into it ... stochasticaly?
     - You have to prove that if the bio-processes are happening at random, there is some probability function of distribution (how you are going to represent probability of 10 to the power of minus 84 is not my problem)
     - You have to proof that the Green Algae and the Cyanobacteria (or their equivalents) may appear on any planet throughout the Universe.

Not to mention that you are missing 9.18 billion years in the development of this region of the Universe (where the SS is right now). This is a huge information gap, FM (if the ages are true).
How can anybody make any theory, whatsoever, on the grounds of an assumption of information gap of 9.18 billion years? This is as if to watch the last 45 min of a 2 hour movie, and when you go out to start narrating to the population the whole movie from the very beginning.

farmerman wrote:
Evidenced -Yep

     - Your evidences are so shaking that they can be used as a proof of any theory, like ID for example.
     - The fossils might be showing the design process of the development of the thinking of the ID-er in creating the life on the Earth.
     - On the other side it might be showing the gradual acquisition of access of the ID-er to execute life on Earth.
     - The sequence of living species on the Earth might have had as an objective to model the conditions on the Earth - for our arrival, for example.

farmerman wrote:
Testable-yep

... and what are your test setting and test samples and test vectors ... if it is not some secret.

farmerman wrote:
Your point about it being "feasible" is idiotic

It may be idiotic, but you cannot design a brand new species in the lab by following the explanations of the evolution theory, hence you have no verifiable evidence that the evolution even exists in the real world let alone it is doing what it claims to be doing.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 02:12 pm
@Herald,
You wrote,
Quote:
- To show from where, when and how each bit of hereditary information is encoded into the DNA sequence


Wrong approach. The DNA proves inherited traits, and it doesn't matter 'where, when and how.'
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 05:03 pm
Quote:
Cicerone said: It's similar to asking them to accept the facts that will kill their god.

What facts?
If scientists can kill God with facts, why is he still going strong?..Smile
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 05:14 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Some people are blind to the facts that are available.
Emotion is not a good way to make decisions about many things in life when facts and evidence are available to anyone seeking it.

Have you ever invested in "get rich quick" schemes? That's one good example.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2014 08:23 pm
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/YbklIqThAKV5_QTSu2mgfw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTE5NTtweW9mZj0wO3E9NzU7dz02MDA-/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ucomics.com/nq140731.gif
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2014 04:44 am
@Herald,
The scientific process isn't required to disprove the possibility of magic. You may not like it but science simply assumes that magic is not involved.

I think your basic objection is that you don't like the rules that underly science.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2014 06:00 am
really wanna know why crocodiles haven't become birds? here's why
Quote:
sci/techShrinking Dinosaurs Evolved into Flying Birds



16 hr ago | By Charles Q. Choi of Livescience.com
Today's birds evolved from dinosaurs that shrank continuously for 50 million years, researchers say.

Dinosaurs first emerged about 245 million years ago, and they came to dominate the planet. They included the largest animals ever to walk across the surface of Earth. Their reign came to an end with a bang — a cosmic impact from an asteroid or comet maybe 6 miles (10 kilometers) wide. However, not all of the dinosaurs were killed by this impact — they became the birds that are now found on every continent on Earth.

"Birds are the only dinosaurs that are still alive today," said lead studyauthor Michael Lee, an evolutionary biologist at the South Australian Museum and the University of Adelaide in Australia.

Birds evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs known as theropods, which included giant predators such as Tyrannosaurus rex and talon-footed raptors such as Deinonychus. Recent studies of theropods keep finding more and more birdlike traits, such as feathers, wishbones, hollow skeletons and three-fingered hands, Lee said.

To learn more about how small, graceful fliers such as hummingbirds evolved from massive ground-dwelling theropods, scientists developed a detailed family tree of birds and their dinosaur ancestors, mapping out this evolutionary transformation. They analyzed more than 1,500 anatomical traits from 120 species of early birds and all branches of the theropod family tree, and estimated when the two diverged from each other and how quickly each lineage changed.

The researchers discovered that the branch of theropods that gave rise to modern birds consisted of the only theropods that kept shrinking. In the lineage that led directly to birds, body size decreased during the course of at least 12 different stages over 50 million years or so, from stiff-tailed carnivores known as tetanurans that lived about 198 million years ago and weighed about 359 lbs. (163 kilograms) to Archaeopteryx, long considered the first known bird, which lived about 150 million years ago and averaged about 1.7 lbs. (0.8 kg).

"No other dinosaur group underwent such an extended period of shrinkage," Lee told Live Science.

In addition to this miniaturization, the scientists discovered that bird precursors evolved new skeletal adaptations — such as wings, enlarged brains, smaller teeth and large eyes — four times faster than other dinosaurs.

"Birds arose from the most 'evolvable' dinosaurs," Lee told Live Science.

All in all, "being smaller and lighter in the land of giants, with rapidly evolving anatomical adaptations, provided these bird ancestors with new ecological opportunities, such as the ability to climb trees, glide and fly," Lee said in a statement. "This evolutionary flexibility helped birds survive the deadly meteorite impact, which killed off all their dinosaurian cousins."

Ultimately, "birds out-shrank and out-evolved their dinosaurian ancestors, surviving where their larger, less-evolvable relatives could not," Lee said in a statement.

In the future, the researchers would like "to see these methods applied to help understand rates and patterns of evolution in other groups," Lee said. "For instance, how fast did mammals evolve after the dinosaur extinctions? We know they evolved rapidly, but we don't have exact rates yet."

The scientists detail their findings in the Aug. 1 issue of the journal Science.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2014 07:38 am
@MontereyJack,
Excellent data reduction. Vera Cool.

Hey Harold
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2014 08:51 am
@MontereyJack,
No arguments with the overall conclusions, its pretty much a takeoff from "Foster's Rule". However, now these guys have taken ARcheopteryx back into "The bird world". A bird with teeth , hmmm. I liked itbetter whe Archeopteryx remained a reptile because
1 its body structures were more reptilian
2 it was firmly in themed- Jurassic and many of these "paraaves" were late J or early K.

No dogs in that one either, Im just a customer. Therell probably be some beer hall bouts at the next Geological Society of America COnferences
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2014 11:27 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Quote:
"Birds are the only dinosaurs that are still alive today," said lead studyauthor Michael Lee, an evolutionary biologist at the South Australian Museum and the University of Adelaide in Australia.

Birds evolved from carnivorous dinosaurs known as theropods, which included giant predators such as Tyrannosaurus rex

These is narration of fables for idiots.
T. Rex has been 12.3 m long, 5 meters tall, and has had weight of 6.8 metric tons. Can you name the birds that 'have evolved' from T. Rex (that have such dimensions and such weight) ... and that have succeeded to take off from the ground with such grantings?

Quote:
However, not all of the dinosaurs were killed by this impact — they became the birds that are now found on every continent on Earth.

T. Rex has become extinct 67 million years ago and the Cretaceous - Paleogene extinction event is 65 Mya.
I know that to people like you and FM ... and your sources 2 million years are nothing (within the statistical error) but 2 million years are 2 000 000 years ... which is a lot of time - the humans have not been of the Earth even one quarter of that period. IMV there is no way for T. Rex to have evolved into birds as a result of the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event ... 2 million years after it has extinct as species.
Can you name some species that has extinct 2 million years ago and has evolved into whatever ... nowadays?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Aug, 2014 11:42 pm
@Herald,
You wrote,
Quote:
These is narration of fables for idiots.


On what basis do you arrive at this conclusion? Your opinion based on size is supposed to mean, what? Please!

Try this link on the evidence presented on the evolution of dinosaurs that evolved into birds.
http://www.nhm.org/site/research-collections/dinosaur-institute/dinosaurs/birds-late-evolution-dinosaurs
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2014 04:50 pm
@Herald,
Where to begin?

Since Tyrannosaurid reptiles occupy the geologic record of the areas sort of "in the same neighborhood' and from the time around the mid to late Cretaceous (see below timeline of the various species of Tyrannosaurus and Albertasaurus etc).
     http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/74ca92ac53c7bb89a9f6802ff729bcaa.png

Archeopteryx was found in the fossil record of the upper Tithonian (Late Jurassic). In other words, archaeopteryx was alive almost 80 million years before any of the many species of Tyrqnnosaurus even evolved. (Its kinda like having you be the ancestor of your great great great grandfather)


A rule in the fosil record is that its hard to evolve from something that isn't even alive yet.
The next argument about where the T rexes and Archeopteryces were found in the rocks would also be important but after the primary point above, its kind of irrelevant eh?


Quote:
These is narration of fables for idiots
Don't be so hrd on yourelf. Maybe the reason that youre a big liar is because you have not a lick of sense in that tiny brain of yours.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Aug, 2014 05:22 pm
@farmerman,
Welcome to the Insult Club. Mr. Green
"Tiny brain." I may have used that term in my past.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
The Evil of god - Discussion by giujohn
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 10:36:10