|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 04/28/2006 : 15:56:53 [Permalink]
|
Attempt #2 to get an answer
So, where on that tiny boat (that we know the dimensions of) did Noah put more than 2 brotosaurus, T-rex, etc...plus the food?
Maybe your god shrunk them down? Doesn't say that in your bible, so that's not an option.
Or perhaps the sizes are incorrect...we have totally screwed it up based on the fossils, right?
Or none of those animals really existed, the fossiles were all fabricated?
Or Satan put those fossils in the ground to test our faith?
Or god put those fossils in the ground to test our faith?
I eagerly await your explanation. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2006 : 21:24:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
So, where on that tiny boat (that we know the dimensions of) did Noah put more than 2 brotosaurus, T-rex, etc...plus the food?
It's either seven or seven pairs of every "clean" animal, and two (or is it two pairs?) of every "unclean" animal. "Animals" being birds and "creatures that move along the ground." Or "birds" might mean "everything with wings." Or maybe "animals" means "all creatures that have the breath of life in them."
At any rate, the dinosaurs, being "great lizards" (Leviticus 11:19), would be unclean and so Noah would have only had to take two (or four) or each "kind" (whatever that means). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 00:26:21 [Permalink]
|
Here is another transitional fossil. Early on in this thread Bill was blathering about jawless eel like creatures. Here is an early fish with a jaw that had pouch gills like a lamprey (a jawless fish).
Quebec fish fossil shows early gill structure
Abstract of article in Nature
That makes 2 transitional fish fossils found in Canada - Coincidence or an act of Satan? I say an act of Satan since we have gay marriage in Canada now. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2006 : 03:16:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
Here is another transitional fossil. Early on in this thread Bill was blathering about jawless eel like creatures. Here is an early fish with a jaw that had pouch gills like a lamprey (a jawless fish).
Quebec fish fossil shows early gill structure
Abstract of article in Nature
That makes 2 transitional fish fossils found in Canada - Coincidence or an act of Satan? I say an act of Satan since we have gay marriage in Canada now.
I, among many others, have been waiting for something like this to show up. Thanks Ghost -- good find!
Save the Great Lakes Fisheries; Eat More Lamprey! 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 07:07:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
#1 your puddles and ponds that, along with Darwins primordial entities, were just there and no explanation at all is required for their origin, according to you that is...
I never said any such thing, Bill. The theory of evolution cannot explain the origin of life itself ("primordial entities"). A different theory attempts to explain that. It's not my problem that you refuse to make the distinction.
Same with the puddles and ponds. Geology, meteorology, physics and several other sciences explain their origins, not the theory of evolution.
quote:
never said any such thing, Bill. The theory of evolution cannot explain the origin of life itself ("primordial entities"). A different theory attempts to explain that. It's not my problem that you refuse to make the distinction.
(bill) In bio 101 you might be able to build a separation wall between ToE and it's genesis, but while defending your philosophical worldview on naturalism, no such separation wall exists. If your going to begin your defense of the naturalistic worldview with life's primordial entities already in existence, then I am going to want to know where these PE came from? If an asteroid shuttle system, bringing back the necessary components for life from mars, is the latest theory, then fine. But to draw an imaginary separation line on origins, while defending naturalism, is just a cop-out.
quote:
The earliest tetrapods (animals with four feet - tetra-pod) all lived primarily in water (not open seas, but in water).
Same with the puddles and ponds. Geology, meteorology, physics and several other sciences explain their origins, not the theory of evolution.
(bill) OK. Then what do these sciences have to say about these puddles, that you speak of, and their origin? Do say they say these puddles, where you theorize that the first tetrapods crawled onto land, are they themselves theory, or have they been empirically demonstrated to exist as the sergeant mother of all vertebrate life?
quote:
as jawless eel-like critters, which later developed jaws, paired fins, etc (in other words, fish evolved from them).
(bill) Is this theory or empirical fact? And where did this life come from and what was it like before it was a jawless ell like critter? And what evidence do have to support this?
In fact, the plot thickens beyond Archaeopteryx. In February of 2003, Discover magazine interviewed Feduccia, and touched upon the subject of feathered dinosaurs as a whole.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discover: What about all the other evidence for feathered dinosaurs?
Feduccia: When we see actual feathers preserved on specimens, we need to carefully determine if we are looking at secondarily flightless birds that have retained feathers and only superficially resemble dinosaurs, or if the specimens are in fact re |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 07:16:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Bill seems reluctant to tell us how many creation (hem-hem) scientists and misquoted evolutionists are named 'Steve.'
Perhaps I'm being too subtle.
Ah well, no matter, although I suppose we'll be getting more argumentum ad verecundiam as we go along.
Here's something that creationists such as himself can blither about endlessly, and have:
Transitional species? intermediate species? What?
quote:
Transitional species?
(bill) Nope.
quote:
intermediate species?
(bill) Nope.
quote:
What?
(bill) A Platypus.
quote:
Here's http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html something that creationists such as himself can blither about endlessly, and have:
(bill) Let me guess, you think it is some transition between mammal and reptile? What evidence do you have to support this? Unless you have a procession of fossils, showing the graduating steps from mammal to reptile, or vice a versa, ( which I know that you don't) then any fairytale about this being just another critter in transit is, just that, a just-so story. You have not demonstrated that the platypus was ever anything other then what it is, nor have you demonstrated that it will ever be anything other then what it is, a platypus. And as you know, you have to empirically demonstrate something before you can move it from the fairytale status to science status, which you have not. The whole naturalist worldview is a series of just-so fairytales, that are separated by an imaginary wall at their origins, to prevent all the fairytales from being pulled together to form one incomplete worldview, which is based on nothing but a bunch of silly and fully separated just-so stories.
quote:
Following is a list of the platypus fossils found to date. Unfortunately it is quite a short list, as the Australian fossil record is not particularly rich. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html
(bill) But yet this does not stop the naturalist from making up all kinds of unsupported just-so stories on the critter...
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 05/02/2006 07:28:33 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 08:03:26 [Permalink]
|
How many fossils does it take to show the graduating steps from one species to another before creationists will accept it?
The answer is you can't. The creationist will not allow anything to disturb their worldview, no matter how much evidence is presented.
This is the textbook definition of delusional.
Present your evidence, Bill, that something else helped shape the lifeforms we see today. Present evidence for your theory, not arguments against evolution. Do you have any evidence that supports your theory? Do you have a theory?
And still waiting on the Noah's Ark questions. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 05/02/2006 08:05:32 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 09:05:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
Present your evidence, Bill, that something else helped shape the lifeforms we see today. Present evidence for your theory, not arguments against evolution. Do you have any evidence that supports your theory? Do you have a theory?
And still waiting on the Noah's Ark questions.
That is, of course, one of the true weaknesses of the creationist argument. Rather than go out and provide scientific proofs that support the bible, they rely on attacks on science itself, as though they will win by default if they can prove that evolution didn't happen. And nothing could be further from the truth. They are lazy bastards who do not even try to produce evidence that supports their version of things… |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 10:34:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
How many fossils does it take to show the graduating steps from one species to another before creationists will accept it?
The answer is you can't. The creationist will not allow anything to disturb their worldview, no matter how much evidence is presented.
This is the textbook definition of delusional.
Present your evidence, Bill, that something else helped shape the lifeforms we see today. Present evidence for your theory, not arguments against evolution. Do you have any evidence that supports your theory? Do you have a theory?
And still waiting on the Noah's Ark questions.
quote:
How many fossils does it take to show the graduating steps from one species to another before creationists will accept it?
(bill) How many fossil steps does it take to convince me of going from one species to another species? Zero, as I am already convinced that species beget species.
Now, how many fossils, in procession, did it take before you felt that it was empirically demonstrated that new groups or families evolve from separate and different groups or families to form these new groups and families? Can you please source these fossils that showed you the light?
quote:
Present your evidence, Bill, that something else helped shape the lifeforms we see today. Present evidence for your theory, not arguments against evolution.
(bill) Why? This is a thread for favorite examples of TF's, or lack there of, and not a thread on Bill's worldview. Are you trying to trick me into high-jacking the thread and turning it into Bill's worldview? I was chided on high-jacking threads awhile back and I don't intend on making the same violation twice.
quote:
Do you have any evidence that supports your theory? Do you have a theory?
And still waiting on the Noah's Ark questions.
(bill) Of course I do. However, favorite TF's is the topic on this thread, remember? I am not going to high-jack the thread so you and I can discuss NA or Bill's worldview. When I am finished with this thread I would be glad to discuss with you NA or my worldview.
Why do naturalist always revert to Bible questions or attacks when ToE, or any other naturalistic philosophy, is being scrutinized? Example:
Bill: Dave can you list for me some examples of true links that a naturalist might point out when defending ToE?
Dave: Where are the true links between you and, say, Noah's family which would prove that you are one of God's children, Bill?
Bill: OK. I guess I will scratch that question. (sigh)
Answer: To divert attention away from the utter bankrupt and series of just-so stories that they refuse to tie all together by erecting a made up separation wall between all of their just-so stories and their genesis.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 12:04:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) How many fossil steps does it take to convince me of going from one species to another species? Zero, as I am already convinced that species beget species.
So no evidence or data will sway you from you opinion - gee what is the point of this conversation.
If you had evidence that evolution was incorrect the most if not all the skeptics on this site would change there minds.
Your position is very sad. You are saying of course that you are not going to let the truth or the facts get in the way of your opinion. God must be very proud of you...
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 12:07:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) Let me guess, you think it is some transition between mammal and reptile? What evidence do you have to support this? Unless you have a procession of fossils, showing the graduating steps from mammal to reptile, or vice a versa, ( which I know that you don't) then any fairytale about this being just another critter in transit is, just that, a just-so story. You have not demonstrated that the platypus was ever anything other then what it is, nor have you demonstrated that it will ever be anything other then what it is, a platypus. And as you know, you have to empirically demonstrate something before you can move it from the fairytale status to science status, which you have not. The whole naturalist worldview is a series of just-so fairytales, that are separated by an imaginary wall at their origins, to prevent all the fairytales from being pulled together to form one incomplete worldview, which is based on nothing but a bunch of silly and fully separated just-so stories.
Do show me where I made any claim what-so-ever about the platypus beyond a couple of tongue-in-cheek remarks. Comes to that, I never even wrote it's name until just this minute. I merely provided a link which you did not bother to open, and a photograph which seems to caught your attention if not your thought processes. And you're a pretty piss-poor guesser, and that's sad. Guesses and logical fallicies such as quote-mining seem to be pretty much all that you have. quote:
"Oh really," said Picard, not buying it for a second. "And just where, in all aspects of creation, can your hand be seen?"
Q smiled toothily. "Why Picard ... who do you think came up with the duck-billed platypus?"
Again, how many of those quacks creation scientists were named 'Steve?'
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 12:51:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
quote:
(bill) How many fossil steps does it take to convince me of going from one species to another species? Zero, as I am already convinced that species beget species.
So no evidence or data will sway you from you opinion - gee what is the point of this conversation.
If you had evidence that evolution was incorrect the most if not all the skeptics on this site would change there minds.
Your position is very sad. You are saying of course that you are not going to let the truth or the facts get in the way of your opinion. God must be very proud of you...
quote:
o no evidence or data will sway you from you opinion - gee what is the point of this conversation.
(bill) I said that zero fossils would be required to convince that species beget species as I already am convinced of this empirically demonstrated fact. This is not macroevolution...
quote:
If you had evidence that evolution was incorrect the most if not all the skeptics on this site would change there minds.
(bill) So what fossil procession would you point to as empirical evidence for a family or group evolving into a completely new and different family or group?
quote:
Your position is very sad. You are saying of course that you are not going to let the truth or the facts get in the way of your opinion. God must be very proud of you...
(bill) What facts and truth are you referring to?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 12:55:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
(bill) Let me guess, you think it is some transition between mammal and reptile? What evidence do you have to support this? Unless you have a procession of fossils, showing the graduating steps from mammal to reptile, or vice a versa, ( which I know that you don't) then any fairytale about this being just another critter in transit is, just that, a just-so story. You have not demonstrated that the platypus was ever anything other then what it is, nor have you demonstrated that it will ever be anything other then what it is, a platypus. And as you know, you have to empirically demonstrate something before you can move it from the fairytale status to science status, which you have not. The whole naturalist worldview is a series of just-so fairytales, that are separated by an imaginary wall at their origins, to prevent all the fairytales from being pulled together to form one incomplete worldview, which is based on nothing but a bunch of silly and fully separated just-so stories.
Do show me where I made any claim what-so-ever about the platypus beyond a couple of tongue-in-cheek remarks. Comes to that, I never even wrote it's name until just this minute. I merely provided a link which you did not bother to open, and a photograph which seems to caught your attention if not your thought processes. And you're a pretty piss-poor guesser, and that's sad. Guesses and logical fallicies such as quote-mining seem to be pretty much all that you have. quote:
"Oh really," said Picard, not buying it for a second. "And just where, in all aspects of creation, can your hand be seen?"
Q smiled toothily. "Why Picard ... who do you think came up with the duck-billed platypus?"
Again, how many of those quacks creation scientists were named 'Steve?'
quote:
Do show me where I made any claim what-so-ever about the platypus beyond a couple of tongue-in-cheek remarks. Comes to that, I never even wrote it's name until just this minute. I merely provided a link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html which you did not bother to open, and a photograph which seems to caught your attention if not your thought processes.
(bill) I am afraid I am going to have to ask if you read your own link? As the quote I presented, and offered a link to, was your link to your article on the platypus:
Following is a list of the platypus fossils found to date. Unfortunately it is quite a short list, as the Australian fossil record is not particularly rich.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html
This is a quote from your link, bro.
quote:
And you're a pretty piss-poor guesser, and that's sad. Guesses and logical fallicies such as quote-mining seem to be pretty much all that you have.
(bill) From your link:
In general, the platypus has a fascinating mixture of reptilian and mammalian features.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.html
(bill) Sorry for me guessing that you back the critter as a reptilian and mammalian transition. I admit, the only thing I based this guess on was reading the link that you sent to me. Maybe next time you should add a disclaimer to your links saying that you might not believe some or all of the link yourself, if that is the case?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 13:29:53 [Permalink]
|
You did read the link! Excellent! Apologies all around....
I do not consider the monotremes a link between reptiles and mammals. Rather I think that they are a side branch that split off and a mere couple, the platypus and the echinas, managed to survive in isolation largely unchanged, as did the coelacanth (one species of lobefin remaining out of probably thousands); as did H. neandertalesis (who failed to survive). Just thoughts of my own suggested by the known record and the writings and references of the scholars that study it.
As stated, the monotreme fossil record is sparse, and that's good. Thus might Creationists speculate endlessly upon God's intentions when he antied them into the pot. He might have been bluffing.....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 17:12:00 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: quote:
(bill) How many fossil steps does it take to convince me of going from one species to another species? Zero, as I am already convinced that species beget species.
Now, how many fossils, in procession, did it take before you felt that it was empirically demonstrated that new groups or families evolve from separate and different groups or families to form these new groups and families? Can you please source these fossils that showed you the light?
You know damn well what he meant (as shown by the second paragraph here), and you are just avoiding answering him. Also, you have not addressed every transitional fossil mentioned here, so why are you asking for even more examples? For example, you have said nothing about the hominids I mentioned very early on.
quote:
(bill) So what fossil procession would you point to as empirical evidence for a family or group evolving into a completely new and different family or group?
Austropithecines as a clear transition between apes and hominids. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
