|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
 Posted - 01/07/2003 : 08:18:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Key word being "all the parts"
No wrong again, the key part being reproduction and a form of inheritance. At that point you have an evolving system and you end up with competition between proto cells and then you end up with natural selection and then the sky is the limit.
quote:
If they did just 25% more, they could win a prize. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
What a joke. If you want to dismiss valid rapidly progressing science go for it, but I really then don't have much to say to such an illogical trivial argument.
quote:
Some very good points. I would be interested in studying these species you mentioned.
Here I will give you a start:
http://dorakmt.tripod.com/evolution/sreprod.html
You will also find some examples of real virgin births there as well.
Again you are missing the point. Sexual reproduction evolved first in species where there was no designation of male or female. Each could if no partner was found reproduce asexually, but in the presence of a partner could exchange genetic information to form an offspring. Then this trait was passed on from these primitive most likely single celled organisms to its descendants. Slowly over time modifications were made to the process and eventually sexual selection began to play a role in evolution then you get a diversification of the sexes. Again not rocket science, just a basic understanding of biology and current bio diversity to give hints to the past.
I am at a loss as to what the rest of your paragraph is talking about. It is far from reality is all I can tell.
quote:
All such fossil links of prehistoric men have been disproven by modern tests.
You are either a fool who speaks of what he/she does not know or you are a liar.
Being an anthropology graduate student who studies such specimens with my specialty being physical anthropology studying both primate and human evolution and I can with confidence say your above statement is false. So either you are a fool speaking of things that you do not know or you are a deliberate liar. I bet you can't give more than two specimens that have been shown to be false (Piltdown man (a deliberate hoax disproven in the 1950's) and Nebraska man (a mistaken pig's tooth disproven in the 1920's))
That compared to the hundreds of specimens that have been verified by numerous experts as legitimate specimens with legitimate transitional features between ape and man and with legitimate dates ranging from the recent past to beyond 5 mya. |
 |
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 10:03:48 [Permalink]
|
Here I will give you a start:
http://dorakmt.tripod.com/evolution/sreprod.html
You will also find some examples of real virgin births there as well.
Again you are missing the point. Sexual reproduction evolved first in species where there was no designation of male or female.
I will add a quote from your link that I believe you miss in your arguments when you discuss your science and evidence as if they automatically prove evolution with no other explanation possible.
It is believed that sexual reproduction evolved as early as 2.5 to 3.5 billion years ago (Bernstein H et al., Am Nat 1981). |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 10:45:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
I will add a quote from your link that I believe you miss in your arguments when you discuss your science and evidence as if they automatically prove evolution with no other explanation possible.
"God(s) did it" is not an explanation. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 11:00:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
It is believed that sexual reproduction evolved as early as 2.5 to 3.5 billion years ago (Bernstein H et al., Am Nat 1981).
Well, there you go. I guess we'll have to tell scientists to start using more definitive language lest they forever go down in flames to your scathing criticism.
There must be an appropriate cliche... How about, "Hello mountain, weren't you a molehill when I last saw you?"
In any case, would you care to reply to the actual substance of jcmcginn's post?
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 12:18:20 [Permalink]
|
By the way when do we get to the part where we are shown evidence that everything popped into existence as the result of a magic word being said?
The evidence that people are not related to apes but rather to dust bunnies? The pile of dust that springs into a fully grown man when it is blown on by some magic breath? And let us not forget the woman who comes from a magic spare rib.
And when you get done with that explain how rabbits are created out of top hats. |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 14:35:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I will add a quote from your link that I believe you miss in your arguments when you discuss your science and evidence as if they automatically prove evolution with no other explanation possible.
Amazing stuff. Yep scientists often if not almost always speak in tentative terms because they know from past experience that new evidence can come to light making definite declarations seem quite foolish. So is the nature of science.
Are other explanations possible? Sure but with the evidence we have there is only one explanation that fits and that is evolution.
As is typical of creationists you make statements that are blatantly false such as quote:
All such fossil links of prehistoric men have been disproven by modern tests.
then when you are called on it, you move on ignoring the fact that you just lied through your teeth. You then move on to some other tangent using all of the typical creationists ploys such as your quote selection above.
When a scientists is caught lying or falsifying his research he is effectively removed from the field of science and is no longer trusted by his peers. However for your typical apologists/creationists lying is the norm and they are ostracized when they tell the truth.
You came hear squawking that it takes a leap of logic to not believe in ID but have yet to provide anything of either worth nor truthfulness. Yet however one cannot even call it a leap of logic for the form of creationism you are advocating. For it to be a leap of logic two logical points must already exist to be leaped between, with YECism there are no logical points. Just pure irrational beliefs, no evidence, no science, no facts, just believe because the Bible says so. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 15:11:31 [Permalink]
|
As is typical of creationists you make statements that are blatantly false...then when you are called on it, you move on ignoring the fact that you just lied through your teeth.
And yet they still call themselves "apologists," even though they never apologize. ;) |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 16:02:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
As is typical of creationists you make statements that are blatantly false...then when you are called on it, you move on ignoring the fact that you just lied through your teeth.
And yet they still call themselves "apologists," even though they never apologize. ;)
Oh they apologize alright, every breath they speak is an apology for what a sorry excuse the Bible is as a moral guide or as a factual tome.  |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 17:12:55 [Permalink]
|
Probability and the Origin of Life http://intelligentdesign.org/odds/odds.htm
The following is and excerpt. Go there yourself to read it all. Some interesting stuff.
It was Dr. Emile Borel who first formulated the basic Law of Probability which states that the occurrence of an event where the chances are beyond 1 chance in 1050(the 200th power is used for scientific calculations), is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of the time allotted or how many opportunities could exist for the event to take place.(Emile Borel, Probabilities and Life, Dover 1962, chapters 1-3)
The mathematical probability of a single living cell arising spontaneously has been calculated over and over again by evolutionary scientists and they have been unable to come up with a figure which falls under Borel's upper limit!
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 18:00:27 [Permalink]
|
Gee, Emile must be an idiot.
There are no odds on things that already happened. That's why you can't bet today on yesterdays horse race.
The probability that life came about exactly as it did is 1
not one to the two hundreth power...just one.
Go to a beach and the chances that you will pick one particular grain of sand are a gazillion to one. However once you have picked a grain the chances that you did pick it are only 1
The mathematical probability that a single living cell arose spontaneously is 100% not beyond "Borel's upper limit."
|
| Edited by - Slater on 01/07/2003 18:01:11 |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 18:20:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
Gee, Emile must be an idiot.
There are no odds on things that already happened. That's why you can't bet today on yesterdays horse race.
The probability that life came about exactly as it did is 1
not one to the two hundreth power...just one.
Go to a beach and the chances that you will pick one particular grain of sand are a gazillion to one. However once you have picked a grain the chances that you did pick it are only 1
The mathematical probability that a single living cell arose spontaneously is 100% not beyond "Borel's upper limit."
Ahem...we are talking about the probability of it happening as Darwin said it might have....that probability being Zero mathematically. Duh... |
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
|
|
|
Doomar
SFN Regular
USA
714 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 18:25:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Doomar said
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All such fossil links of prehistoric men have been disproven by modern tests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jmcginn said:
You are either a fool who speaks of what he/she does not know or you are a liar.
You are free to prove otherwise, if you can....hehehehheeh. Have a prehistoric man bone at home you're keeping for some rainy day? Don't hold back on us now.
|
Mark 10:27 (NKJV) 27But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
www.pastorsb.com.htm |
| Edited by - Doomar on 01/07/2003 18:29:34 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 18:39:29 [Permalink]
|
Ahem...we are talking about the probability of it happening as Darwin said it might have....that probability being Zero mathematically. Duh...
I like the fact that you wrote "Duh." Darwin never wrote about the origin of life. He wrote about the Origin of Species.
Now wipe the drool from you chin and tell me what the odds are that a pile of dust can turn into an adult human ( caucasian, of course), belly button and all, from being blown on? |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 20:07:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
Quoth Doomar previously: All such fossil links of prehistoric men have been disproven by modern tests.
jmcginn in response: You are either a fool who speaks of what he/she does not know or you are a liar.
Doomar: You are free to prove otherwise, if you can....hehehehheeh. Have a prehistoric man bone at home you're keeping for some rainy day? Don't hold back on us now.
Sorry, I was just noticing it was you who made the positive claim. Look, right up there in blue. You speak of the existence of "modern tests." jcmcginn says you're wrong. It is now up to you to cite or link to the tests to which you refer. It is your move and this line of questioning is suspended until you provide your "tests." I will respond to any attempted evasions only with a reference to this post until you do. |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 04:24:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
It was Dr. Emile Borel who first formulated the basic Law of Probability which states ...
You are, indeed, a desparate liar or, more likely, a gullible fool. Please show us any standard statistics textbook, used at any level of formal education, that addresses this "basic [sic] Law of Probability". As for Emile Borel, he wrote:quote:
We ought, it seems to me, to consider it likely that the formation of elementary living organisms, and the evolution of those organisms, are also governed by elementary properties of matter that we do not understand perfectly but whose existence we ought nevertheless admit.
Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance.
- From Probability and Certainty, p. 124-126, emphasis added
This quote is found in a Talk.Origins FAQ which summarizes:quote:
In short, Borel says what many a talk.origins poster has said time and time again when confronted with such creationist arguments: namely, that probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless.
Instead of wasting so much effort color-coding your ignorance, why actually take the time to learn something?
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
