BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:06 PM

Yeah Shimrod, they (pete and Ham et al) claim to believe in natural selection now. I guess they are Young Earth Darwinists. Or Post Flood Evolutionists. But only where it does not conflict with their version of Genesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 01:56 PM

"MARSUPIALS ARE CONCENTRATED in one large area, thus allowing some in other areas, and maybe those areas had more in the past, but selection pressure had thinned them out."

Do you mean NATURAL selection pressure, pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,DMcG
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 01:42 PM

Argh! No cookie at home now! DMcG above.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 01:40 PM

Oh, pete, are you are you REALLY sure you want me to do that? Remember that the challenge you set me was not to prove evolutionary theory correct, but to prove that the theory, whether true or not, predicts different species with a common ancestor will share characteristics.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 01:00 PM

GOD

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:47 PM

Ultimately Christianity is about choice, Adam's, Eve's, Pilate's, pete's choice, my choice.

Since the flood at least, we have had free will and are not to be punished for exercising it.

Apparently the people of Jericho were slaughtered simple for being on land that the Israelites coveted. Jesus came up with love thy neighbor. But no government has ever tried to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:31 PM

Ooops.

Suppose I should have specified "over the last 6,000 years".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:29 PM

Pretty half-arsed God, then, if he kept/keeps screwing up like that, no?

With a record like that over the milennia, its a wonder pete & Ham would rely on him/her/it for anything whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:15 PM

From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:32 AM

Now ya got me bumfuzzled, Jack; surely Genesis is the WORD of God, and if science exists, God must have created it, too, so if God created Science, how can it be "wrong" unless God is wrong?

I feel a migraine coming.

----------------

No where in the Bible does it say that everything God created was perfect. In fact in Genesis the whole point in the garden of Eden story was that Adam and Eve were flawed. God created Lucifer. God created the people who were drowned in the flood for their sins. God created Sodom and Gomorrah, and Pharaoh and Pontius Pilate and Judas.   And so on. Science, according to pete and Ham, being wrong about Evolution seems like relatively small potatoes compared to that. Doesn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:02 PM

ok dmcg I shall keep my word, when you have given the evolutionary explanation. it had better be convincing because I still fail to see why it cant be , because that's where they ended up. of course as you said yourself MOST MARSUPIALS ARE CONCENTRATED in one large area, thus allowing some in other areas, and maybe those areas had more in the past, but selection pressure had thinned them out.
I look forward to your explanation, so I at least know what the argument is.
btw, and you have the advantage here as the scientist,...are there nostril breathing animals that compare to your beetle challenge?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:33 AM

TheSnail,

I have never had a subscription to The Discovery Channel. You are making false assumptions based on guesses and little data and presenting your assumptions as fact. What's more you are arrogantly presenting these false assumptions in an effort to demean another forum member. Isn't that exactly what angers you about Steve Shaw?

I don't care if you call me silly. I joke quite a bit. That's true. In fact I am joking now....mostly.

Please leave me out of your feud with Mr. Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:32 AM

Now ya got me bumfuzzled, Jack; surely Genesis is the WORD of God, and if science exists, God must have created it, too, so if God created Science, how can it be "wrong" unless God is wrong?

I feel a migraine coming.......

;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:26 AM

Oops.

That would be faith and this whole conversation which has gone on for literally years.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 10:15 AM

"
You're kidding, right? No Problem!! God wanted it that way."

If that were only what pete were saying. That would be faith and this whole conversation which has gone on for literally years.

But pete is concurrently saying that he doesn't know any science, but that he knows that science is wrong but Genesis is right and that can be proved scientifically, but he doesn't know exactly how. And now, disturbingly, he shows us that he doesn't even know what the "science" in Genesis is.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 09:53 AM

another fact for you to explain using the creation model,namely "Marpusials are concentrated in Australasia".

You're kidding, right? No Problem!! God wanted it that way.

Q.E.D.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:56 AM

One more thing, pete, since I's rather it wasn't just forgotten about. Remember you said "if you can just manage to explain something from that "massive amount of evidence" that cannot also be explained by the creation model, then I will bow out till I can answer it"

Now, the reason I mentioned marsupials being concentrated in Australasia as an example, rather than a main question, was because to me the question was so obvious that I assumed creationists would have a stock answer they roll out. It literally didn't occur to me that they would have no answer, however dubious.

So that's another fact for you to explain using the creation model, namely "Marpusials are concentrated in Australasia". And remember, the rules of the game don't accept "That's just how it is" as an answer, because the evolution model has an explanation for the particular fact derived from the general theory.

Of course, you might well find a stock answer somewhere and just haven't looked. That's fine, record it here and we will continue focus on the beetles.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:52 AM

The 'Guest' post above about God forgetting to give beetles nostrils ... or something ... was me, by the way.

"All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

I'm glad that you pointed that out, Jack! I was planning to have curried four-legged creeping fowl for tea tonight. Phew! That was close!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 06:17 AM

Did the bible include all creatures or just the ones theological scholars in a small area East of the Mediterranean couple of thousand years ago had heard of?

Were there two or seven breeding pairs of duck billed platypuses? Or should that be platypi? Which way would they have spelt it in the bible?

Did people come back from the dead because doctors weren't very good at diagnosing it from deep coma? Would the bible be written differently if they had done their mandatory advanced life support training? Come to think about it, would pork and shellfish be off the menu if fridges had been invented?

Why did he wait another few thousand years in order to deal with bison and carrier pigeon? Were Americans put there to finish off what Noah started?

This could run and run, so if you would be so kind as to humour me, I am in no rush, just flopped out on the settee with jet lag of sorts. Wide awake as a bloody owl all night and sleepy now.

Talking of Americans.. I reckon they have been around longer than we thought. I don't know the bible at all, but from what I gather, the climax is a bit Hollywood to say the least. Revelations can only have been written as a screenplay.

They reckon Jesus was a socialist yet did he contribute to the greater good by paying duty on the water he turned into wine? I reckon the gold and the spices he never mentioned again (probably gave them to the church raffle) hadn't had duty imposed when he got them, although as a child, the tax status is something scholars will have to debate.

I wonder how biblical people defined superstition when speaking of those weird buggers over there?

If you are still reading, have you jet lag too?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:55 AM

Me again! I was interested in this nostril business,so I looked up the relevant bit of Genesis 7:

22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth

That seems a little selective of you, pete. True, verse 22 encompasses things with life in their nostrils. But verse 23 not only doesn't mention nostrils but explicitly covers 'creatures that move along the ground' which seems to include beetles to me. Of course, many beetles can fly as well, but their common method of locomotion is moving along the ground. I'd be interested in hearing why you quoted verse 22 but not 23.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:35 AM

I wonder if they had an ark or two on some of the planets we just found?

Anyway, for once, I am going to say something positive about religious superstition.

Even I know that St Pancake's Day marks the beginning of lent and that Christians give up a few luxuries for a while. So.... The lady who looks cleans for us happens to be a Christian, and goes to church etc. She has some chocolate liqueurs bought for her at Christmas and their sell by date is later this month. She left them for us to have!

I love these Christians. A pity there aren't many of them. (Or millions of them in The UK alone according to our professor of bollocks.)

And in the best BBC tradition of repeats,

Oh! The amoeba went in two by four by sixteen by sixty four by two hundred and fifty six by sixteen thousand, three hundred and eighty four........

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 05:35 AM

Steve Shaw
Let me put it to you this way: if you think I only "claim" to be a scientist, I will deliberately feed your paranoia. My tactics in that regard are plastered all over these threads for all to see.

I think I summed up your tactics in my last post. Statements of truth and schoolyard abuse.

As I've said so many times, I dip in and out of here when the fancy takes me. I have rather a busy life beyond Mudcat.

Really? You were rather heavily engaged in another of Jack the Sailor's threads at the time.

So you consider Popper's work to be "quasi-philosophical burblings," do you? Intellectually superior to both Newton and Popper. I bet you could tell Einstein a thing or two.

I see no point in debating with pete or Jack. pete believes in the inerrant truth of the Bible. I don't think anything I say will change that and others can take note and judge what he says accordingly. Jack is a rather silly fellow who thinks that watching the Discovery Channel makes him an expert. He isn't important.

You, on the other hand, claim to be a scientist while completely rejecting the philosophy behind it that makes it different from religion. There is a danger that people might be misled by you as I fear that hundreds of your pupils already have.

Ahem: EVOLUTION IS TRUE!

So you keep saying. You say that it is self evident. I have asked you several times to show me some but you have failed to respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,DMcG
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:35 AM

Sorry, that's me immedaitely above. Just the one Guest, not the other. As I say, I'm at work so no cookie here!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:34 AM

I'm at work, so I don't have time for a considered response, but I draw your attention to Genesis 7:4: "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."


That doesn't allow much scope for beetles surviving on driftwood to me. Unless that bit of Genesis isn't to be taken literally?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 03:26 AM

"the record says nothing about insect life, and in fact details those perishing as nostril breathing animals and birds.
so to answer again ... how many beetles on the ark? ... I don't know ..."

God (striking infinite, invisible forehead with infinite, invisible hand): "Drat! I forgot the beetles! And it was me that created them! I'll have to be careful - I'll be losing my reputation for omniscience ... I knew I should have given them nostrils ... what was I thinking of?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 04 Mar 14 - 12:40 AM

"I don't know but they were not, I think, included in the 2's or 7,s gen 7v2,3,21,22. neither do I know how many might survive outside the ark on floating wood or vegetation mats for example." pete

pete, your speculation is not scientific evidence.

So are you saying that the omniscient author of Genesis, the one who wrote something so perfect, so many years ago, that it can be used as science curriculum today did not know that a beetle is an animal?

"2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."

Lets put aside that Leviticus 11:20-23 and indeed none of the Books after Genesis had been written before Noah's life, if indeed Noah was a real person. We only have the definitions of "unclean animals" in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

"Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate,"
Beetles are clean animals. If Genesis is literally true, At least seven pairs should have boarded the Ark. Many many more pairs if "after his kind means what I think it does."

I am also wondering how you are so convinced that the details are all true and without error when you are so unsure of the details. If the answer is faith. That is fine. But you are presenting these things to us as science and pretending that you know that our knowledge of science is wrong. If you don't appear to know what you are talking about in terms of the "scientific" details of Genesis, you don't have much credibility question science.

King James Version (KJV)

20 All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.

21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 11:40 PM

dmcg- I am going to be guilty of backtracking. my only defence being that I realized between last posting and looking here again where I had erred. I later realized that I was responding mistakenly to a wrong question.   the record says nothing about insect life, and in fact details those perishing as nostril breathing animals and birds.
so to answer again.....how many beetles on the ark?    ....
I don't know but they were not, I think, included in the 2's or 7,s gen 7v2,3,21,22. neither do I know how many might survive outside the ark on floating wood or vegetation mats for example.
penny done a good job of detailing difficulties for my previous answer, for which I apologize for wasting her time.
of course I do appreciate that if the same difficulties obtain regarding qualifying animal life that I still have a difficulty.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 10:54 PM

>>>if you think I only "claim" to be a scientist, I will deliberately feed your paranoia. <<<

I've never seen you claim to be a scientist?

Are you one? Are you now claiming to be one?

Other than teaching school children, please tell us, what are your scientific credentials?


Its seems Mr. theSnail that the only thing that you and Mr. Shaw share is a distaste for me. I would thank you both if you were to say that from now on you will leave me out of your feud.

Thanks in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 09:11 PM

"Andy our attacks" was my rather novel way of saying "and your attacks". Had I really meant "Andy our attacks", punctuation pedant that I am, I would have inserted a comma after "Andy".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 09:06 PM

Gosh, Snailie, why don't you tell us what you REALLY think! :-)

I have this rather unfortunate trait, you see, of responding negatively to anyone who "thinks they are out to get me". First, I give not a damn whether anyone around here is "out to get me" or not. Second, I will always mischievously fuel your anti-Shaw delusions because I enjoy the reaction so much. Let me put it to you this way: if you think I only "claim" to be a scientist, I will deliberately feed your paranoia. My tactics in that regard are plastered all over these threads for all to see. As I've said so many times, I dip in and out of here when the fancy takes me. I have rather a busy life beyond Mudcat. If you really want to get heavy about your quasi-philosophical burblings, look elsewhere. I've learned that much about this forum even if you haven't. Andy our attacks look pretty threadbare when one considers how you leave Wacko and pete severely alone (what are you scared of?). Let me give you an effin' great big clue as to my tactics with you. Up to you whether you take it on board, of course. Ahem: EVOLUTION IS TRUE!

Nighty night! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: TheSnail
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:05 PM

Steve Shaw
The standard of comment apropos of science in this forum is abysmal,

I'm glad to see you have retreated from that somewhat arrogant position. There are some quite good minds contributing to this debate.

you continue to focus only on me

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean I'm not out to get you. You seem to dedicate a lot of effort into pursuing the hapless Jack the Sailor. Do you really not have anything better to do with your time? The reason I oppose you is that, while others may be a little wobbly in their arguments here and there, you actively oppose science. Here are some quotes from others -

Stu
A theory has to be falsifiable, so get to it.

An Actual Scientist
I would further point out that Popper is saying that science must be done by *disproving* hypotheses - particularly your own.

Shimrod
The stuff about the philosophy of science, alone, has made it worth participating in.

You, on the other hand, have said in response to my remarks about falsifiabilty -
Now do go along and shove your philosophical carpings where the sun don't shine, dear boy.

and in response to my citing of Popper -
You're either prattling away at me or prattling away about you flavour-of-the-month philosopher, you sad thing you.

You completely reject the underlying philosophy of modern science. You (retired schoolmaster of Bude) tried to argue that Professor Karl Popper CH FBA FRS (University of Christchurch, New Zealand; London School of Economics; University of London) was wrong although I suppose that's nothing compared to your claim to be intellectually superior to Sir Isaac Newton.

I happen to think that science matters. You claim to be a scientist despite the fact that your mind is completely closed to new ideas and you never make any sort of coherent case about anything. You declare things to be true and hurl schoolyard abuse at anyone who dares to disagree with you. You are an embarrassment to science. I worry about the damage that you may have done to your pupils.

Yes, I can play tunes.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 08:48 AM

Sorry, SC, I didn't spot the when you was a student bit.

And, yes, DMcG (I still think it must be Dave McGnome :-) ) I did know it went back some while but the first reference I came to dated a ruling from Pope Benedict in 2007 so I just put that at it confirms it goes back to at least then.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:46 AM

I did say when I was a medical student... I think we are talking around 1996 or thereabouts. My military side means I spend a longer time than most as a junior, hence still a registrar.

I only heard the aftermath third hand, but he was removed from the chaplaincy team by his own church. That makes me think that locally to there (Portsmouth) such things were not the teaching anyway. The navy had some military padres at that hospital, so I'm surprised it was a retired priest via the diocese or whatever they call their regions.

Even if they were, his bedside manner has no place in a hospital, and quite rightly, patients are, hopefully, protected from such abuse. (OK, I did my annual safegarding training last week, so whilst it is fresh in my maind, I know I could have reported that to the local authority safeguarding team as abuse.)

You get mavericks in all walks of life. Enough doctors behind bars for me to try for a higher moral ground, but with clerics, how are they assessed? Where is the peer review? Where is the competency checking or appraisal? These people have access to children and vulnerable adults, often at very sensitive times.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:34 AM


The priest should also have been bollocked for being 7 years out of date with current RC teachings.

Actually, it is much longer than that. I remember this sort of situation being explained when I was in primary school more than 50 years ago, and he was quite wrong, theologically speaking, even by those standards.

Of course, being theologically wrong was the least of the issues in this sad scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:23 AM

The priest should also have been bollocked for being 7 years out of date with current RC teachings.

Even us lapsed Catholics can keep up to date so I don't see why he didn't!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 07:09 AM

As a medical student, I had a clinical attachment to a busy neonatal ward in a large teaching hospital.

I saw a catholic priest, in front of parents who had lost their two day old baby only minutes earlier, shouting at a nurse for not calling him ealrier as their baby won't be allowed into heaven on account of him not baptising the baby before he or she died.

At this point, the parents, who had been quiet, both cried uncontrollably and I helped eject the priest whilst they were being comforted.

Humouring or accomodating religion can be fraught with difficulties. I have great respect for the chaplains I see around hospitals, same as my many religious colleagues who leave their faith at the door when being doctors. (Muslim women treating male patients being a good example.)

But as with any walk of life, you have to be careful of those who take their interests too literally. Arguing reality doesnt always work, as we see in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Mar 14 - 02:55 AM

"but in general as animals spread out from Ararat in the years following the flood, they would encounter different pressures from competition, predators, food sources, and probably other considerations. eventually they would begin to settle to the locations now common to them."

So these two beetles from the Ark 'evolved' into many different species via a process of 'natural selection' did they, pete? But the process took a few thousand, rather than several million, years through the intervention of an invisible, all-powerful super-being ... is that what you're saying, pete? I suppose that you've got TONS of evidence for that, haven't you pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: frogprince
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 10:54 PM

"scholarly theological truth" ??? (Note that I realize that this is a
quotation, not wording originating with JtS or anyone here) Speaking as someone who once studied a great deal of theological material, I could deal with "scholarly theological thought", but as my thinking stands now, the wording "scholarly theological truth" sorta makes me go "yea, riiigghhht"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 06:13 PM

"There is a difference between criticizing people and criticizing a people's uninformed ideals. That is, unless one defines himself or others by their ideals, then he is offended, and usually offended secretly. Because oddly enough, this person is the same person quickest to resort to dismissive name-calling, such as 'bigot' or 'zealot'. And oddly enough, he is always the one, the 'open-minded' one, who adamantly protests for, not only himself, but others not to listen to any type of scholarly theological truth inherently for the sake of his own personal, moral beliefs."
― Criss Jami

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 06:11 PM

pete's refusal to abide by or acknowledge the importance of them highlights the fact that he is unwilling or incapable of discussing science

He is both those things, and, worse, in his pig-ignorance, he insults science, honest scientists and the scientific process, and all because he's been sold some twaddle by a rather sinister bunch of manipulative liars. And that's being kind to him, as it assumes that he's merely utterly gullible and not actually one of those sinister liars himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,An Actual Scientist
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 06:05 PM

DMcG,
Your questions and rules are a valiant and proper effort.
pete's refusal to abide by or acknowledge the importance of them highlights the fact that he is unwilling or incapable of discussing science, thus making the entire exercise completely futile.
But I too have greatly enjoyed how this thread has made me (and others?) think carefully about the nature of science (and the nature of non-science).

Penny S.,
Another great question. Expect a dismissive (and insulting - whether he intends it or not) answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 06:01 PM

Mr. Shaw, based upon our previous conversations, I feel that you are not inclined to discuss these things calmly and rationally. Based on your use of words like "Bollocks, twaddle, nitwit & Whacko, I feel that your intent is to abuse, vilify and punish.

I decline your invitation to bicker.

Well I live in hope that you will, one fine day, post something of substance that could be regarded as "rational". Unfortunately, you have demonstrated in your last two posts that "being rational" is not in your gift. Your declining my invitation (illusory, as it happens) is no loss, old bean, I assure you. Perhaps a little more genuine scholarship and a little less recourse to meretricious popular science articles might not come amiss in your case. Just trying to be helpful, Wackers.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 05:08 PM

McMahon? Shaw? Pah! Thou shalt not have false Gods before me. Or after. Or at the side...

Dave the God

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:46 PM

Mr. Shaw, based upon our previous conversations, I feel that you are not inclined to discuss these things calmly and rationally. Based on your use of words like "Bollocks, twaddle, nitwit & Whacko, I feel that your intent is to abuse, vilify and punish.

I decline your invitation to bicker.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:29 PM

Shimrod,

The first statement was from Steve Shaw.

Forgetting the questionable theory that "land animals without endoskeletons are restricted in size."

Assuming intelligent design as a possibility. It is equally valid to say "Animals evolved the way they are because of gravity." and "Animals were created the way they are because of gravity" Speculation about gravity does not settle the debate in any way or settle the debate.

The only thing you are saying is that the animals that exist today are subject due to limitations due to gravity.

In any given ecological niche, obviously there is a "sweet spot" in size and shape for any given animal. Accord to Steve's "endoskeleton" theory a land crab would be a much less efficient scavenger on land than say a rat. So if rats are introduced to places where the principle scavenger is crabs, then you are likely to see the crabs decrease in number.

Not sure what Steve is saying about endo skeletons per se. But it seems likely that without competition, animals without more efficient competitors are likely to become larger and slower, with the Moa and the Great Auk as modern examples.

Can anyone enlighten me as to what this bunch of twaddle is supposed to mean? Once again, Wackers, you misrepresent (basically because you don't understand plain English). There were no "theories" in my post. Nor is there any "speculation". There are, however, mentions of observable facts. Deny them at your peril, you bloody nitwit!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 04:21 PM

" Think about the structure of our skeleton, for example, and the fact that land animals without endoskeletons are restricted in size. "

If you think about it.
That is as good an argument for intelligent design as it is for evolution. An intelligent designer would not create a land animal that could not walk the earth.

On the other hand evolution would predict that at some point in time in some places there may have been larger non vertebrate animals that were out-competed by vertebrates. If the fossil record showed that somehow, it would be a minor confirmation of evolution.

Absolute bollocks, Wacko. What a bloody lightweight you are. There is no "good argument" for intelligent design any more than there is a good argument for little green men on Mars and Christ knows why I'm having to tell you that. In addition, evolution does not "predict" anything, and your imagined scenario is just brainless tripe. Most of your posts are pretty inane, Wackers, but this one really takes the biscuit. Do try not to waste our time, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Penny S.
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 03:14 PM

If all extant beetles have descended from one pair on the Ark in the 4000 odd years since the Flood (assuming the dating to be correct - which I don't) then there has been a phenomenal rate of evolution within the "kind" (using the creationist term). A rate of approximately 350,000 divided by 4000, or 87 new species per year, assuming no extinctions as time elapsed, more if there were extinctions. But this is not going on now. So we must assume that in the past, the historical past, when people were recording things, new beetles were appearing at an even greater rate. Which has, for some reason, slowed down. The same sort of thing would have been going on with all other sorts of living things. There is no evidence for this, as far as I know.
Further, if the development of different species has happened since the Flood, then there should be a gradation of an increase in difference from those carried on the Ark such that the furthest creatures from Ararat should be most evolved, furthest from primitive. As the monotremes and marsupials are not. Or are we supposed to assume that the creationist form of evolution is a stripping of genetic code? That would explain, perhaps, that the mean marsupial genome size is greater than the mean placental genome size. Oh. No it wouldn't.

Penny (who was trying to keep out of this.)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 03:13 PM

", but in general as animals spread out from Ararat in the years following the flood, they would encounter different pressures from competition, predators, food sources, and probably other considerations. eventually they would begin to settle to the locations now common to them."

Bill Nye answered this well in the debate, when he calculated that it would take the generation of up to 30 new species per day. That is not what we observe today. It is nothing like anything observed in human history.

Pete says science needs to be observable why has this extraordinary explosion of new species not been observed and recorded by any civilization anywhere? Where are the intermediate steps between cattle and moose? or Elk and moose, or elk and deer for that matter if one evolved from the other?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 03:03 PM

the question you posed as an example, I would be unable to give a exact answer to, but in general as animals spread out from Ararat in the years following the flood, they would encounter different pressures from competition, predators, food sources, and probably other considerations. eventually they would begin to settle to the locations now common to them.

Ah, but that doesn't do it, you know. The explanation has to account for why the *marsupials* all ended up in the same place (more or less). What was it about being a marsupial that accounts for them ending up in the same location?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 02:44 PM

Hi DMcG

Here are some thoughts that may or may not help in your discussion with pete.

"you may succeed in exposing my limitations in understanding,"

The limits of pete's understanding are the crux of this debate.

pete exposes those limits every time he uses terms such as "operational science" and "abiogenesis" which are not scientific terms but encapsulated arguments. There are plenty of observable things in paleontology. These are easily observable and in terms of arguments presented by Mr. Ham and his team. Pete said that "Creation Scientists" may speculate. That carbon 14 readings may have been changed by the flood. OK. If that were true we can immerse similar modern material for a year and compare them to samples that have not been immersed and to the samples which appear to be more than 6000 years old. You can prove or disprove that theory pretty much conclusively one way or the other. That is testable and observable science. pete might call that operation science. Those of us who are not "creationists" would simply call that science.

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis vs creation is an ancient argument. It boils down to the following.

Which is more likely? Either life life was created from inanimate matter spontaneously or life was created by a thinking entity of such complexity that he could create a man and matter from nothing and work out all of the natural laws in his head without any know experimentation.

At best, creation is as dubious and unlikely as Abiogenesis.

pete is sure to have heard both of these arguments. He can read a definition of "science" and one of "the scientific method" for himself. He can experiment for himself. He doesn't. He chooses ignorance. He says evolution is not proven. Other than the mere fact of existence and Ken Ham's interpretation of Genesis. He does not even look for evidence of a 6000 year old universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Mar 14 - 02:26 PM

Thanks, pete. I have no intention of asking lawyers' have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife trick questions, just ones with simple straightforward answers, like that one.

Now, we can forget about the ark. We have two beetles of a single species (using another word like 'type' doesn't matter, its just a single beetle with whatever its genetic attributes happen to be) and we need to end up with some 350,000 species that cannot interbreed to give viable offspring. Your theory is that every ancestor of the beetles around contains the complete genetic code of all its decendents. That is, you consider that splitting into 350,000 parts to have happened entirely by loss of generic material.

Have I understood you correctly?