|
|
|
Pahu
Banned
USA
19 Posts |
 Posted - 04/26/2016 : 13:27:34
|
Sexual Reproduction
Figure 16: Male and Female Birds. Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce?
Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence.
If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage.
1. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct.
2. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a).
3. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system.
4. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d)
5. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally” evolved), would have to be tightly controlled.
6. This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species.
a. "In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body” from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly,” mammals—including each of us—would not exist.
The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged. [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.]
b. N. W. Pixie, “Boring Sperm,” Nature, Vol. 351, 27 June 1991, p. 704.
c. Meredith Gould and Jose Luis Stephano, “Electrical Responses of Eggs to Acrosomal Protein Similar to Those Induced by Sperm,” Science, Vol. 235, 27 March 1987, pp. 1654–1656.
d. For example, how could meiosis evolve?
[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences42.html]From In the Beginning by Walt Brown[/url]]
Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e).
Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction (f). But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive?
If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. In other words, why haven’t all organisms evolved reproductive systems that last a lifetime?
Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g).
e. "But the sex-determination genes in the fruit fly and the nematode are completely unrelated to each other, let alone to those in mammals." Tracing How the Sexes Develop,” Science, Vol. 269, 29 September 1955, p. 1822.
f. This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animals is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory. George C. Williams, Sex and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. v.
"So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics.” Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54.
“The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems of biology. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. It is enough to give heart to creationists.” Michael Rose, “Slap and Tickle in the Primeval Soup,” New Scientist, Vol. 112, 30 October 1986, p. 55.
“Indeed, the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today.” Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee, “Why Sex?” Discover, February 1984, p. 24.
“Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue, keeping it a closely guarded secret.” Kathleen McAuliffe, “Why We Have Sex,” Omni, December 1983, p. 18.
“From an evolutionary viewpoint the sex differentiation is impossible to understand, as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. We know that intersects [organisms that are partly male and partly female] within a species must be sterile. How is it, then, possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?” Nilsson, p. 1225.
“One idea those attending the sex symposium seemed to agree on is that no one knows why sex persists.” According to evolution, it should not. W.B.] Gardiner Morse, “Why Is Sex?” Science News, Vol. 126, 8 September 1984, p. 155.
g. “In the discipline of developmental biology, creationist and mechanist concur except on just one point—a work of art, a machine or a body which can reproduce itself cannot first make itself.” Pitman, p. 135.
[[url=http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences42.html]From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown[/url]]
|
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. |
Edited by - Pahu on 04/27/2016 08:14:18
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2016 : 19:17:18 [Permalink]
|
Oh I get it. If there is something we don't yet understand in the realm of evolutionary biology, then it must have been designed. That's the same argument we get about abiogenisis. We don't know how it happened, therefore God did it. Of course, that ignores all that we do know about evolution, which is a lot.
By the way. There are several mistaken claims in the above post. I just don't have the time to go over them now. It could be that someone else here will.
So... How would you like to proceed? Are you going to simply copy and paste Walt Brown's arguments or are you willing to engage personally? Just wondering.
Anyhow, welcome to SFN Pahu. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2016 : 20:06:27 [Permalink]
|
Welcome to the SFN, Pahu!Originally posted by Pahu
Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. |
Name one.| For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce? |
Answer: Walt Brown doesn't understand that sexual reproduction doesn't imply sexual dimorphism.| Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence. |
Since sexual reproduction is so messy and inefficient, I'll pick evolution.| If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage. |
Walt Brown's incredulity does nothing to diminish the weight of the evidence.| 1. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. |
No, that's utterly false. The very similar and complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must and completely and dependently evolved. In other words, Walt Brown is lying to you.| Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct. |
Organisms don't become extinct, populations do. The fact of the matter is that sexual reproduction arose among large populations of animals and plants, so therefore a few misfits wouldn't ruin everything.| 2. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a). |
And?| 3. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system. |
Indeed. This is somehow evidence against the fact that they do?| 4. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d) |
Walt Brown is lying to you again. The processes that occur within cells are messy and chaotic. Cells function by tolerating the stochastic nature of chemistry.| 5. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally” evolved), would have to be tightly controlled. |
Walt's lying again: organisms that fail to tolerate uncontrolled environments die out rather quickly. Even organisms that don't reproduce sexually.| 6. This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species. |
If you think about things differently than Walt Brown does, they're not "accidents," really.| a. In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body” from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly,” mammals—including each of us—would not exist. |
An immune system which attacked its own progeny would, I submit, not be working "properly."| “The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged.” [/color] [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.] |
Walt Brown is trying to make you, Pahu, think that "unexplained" means "false," which is just one more lie.| d. For example, how could meiosis evolve? |
Some potential answers.| Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e). |
Why? Why would evolution of sex stop once it has evolved once? Walt's making no sense here.| Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction (f). |
The footnote doesn't support that assertion.| But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive? |
There is plenty of scientific study into that question. Why not examine the work of the experts, instead of Walt Brown's lies?| If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. In other words, why haven’t all organisms evolved reproductive systems that last a lifetime? |
Walt knows nothing about the grandmother effect. Having grandparents (especially grandmothers) increases reproductive success in mammals, at least.| Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. |
No, it was probably inevitable, chemically speaking.| But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g). |
No, that's a lie on top of a lie.| “So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics.” Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54. |
Note that there exist no "orthodox Darwinians" any longer. These sources are oooooollllld. The youngest of them is from 30 years ago? Does Walt Brown think that scientific investigation of sex ended in 1986? Or does Pahu think that Walt Brown's ancient statements have stood the test of time? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Pahu
Banned
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2016 : 08:17:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Oh I get it. If there is something we don't yet understand in the realm of evolutionary biology, then it must have been designed. That's the same argument we get about abiogenisis. We don't know how it happened, therefore God did it. Of course, that ignores all that we do know about evolution, which is a lot.
By the way. There are several mistaken claims in the above post. I just don't have the time to go over them now. It could be that someone else here will.
So... How would you like to proceed? Are you going to simply copy and paste Walt Brown's arguments or are you willing to engage personally? Just wondering.
Anyhow, welcome to SFN Pahu.
|
I prefer to continue to share the facts of science rather than engaging in endless swapping of opinions. |
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. |
|
|
|
Pahu
Banned
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2016 : 08:22:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Welcome to the SFN, Pahu!Originally posted by Pahu
Even evolutionists admit that evolution seems incompatible with sexual reproduction. |
Name one.| For example, how could organisms evolve to the point where they could reproduce before they could reproduce? |
Answer: Walt Brown doesn't understand that sexual reproduction doesn't imply sexual dimorphism.| Either this series of incredible and complementary events happened by random, evolutionary processes, or sexual reproduction was designed by intelligence. |
Since sexual reproduction is so messy and inefficient, I'll pick evolution.| If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of evolutionary sequences, an unbelievable series of chance events must have occurred at each stage. |
Walt Brown's incredulity does nothing to diminish the weight of the evidence.| 1. The amazingly complex, radically different, yet complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at about the same time and place. |
No, that's utterly false. The very similar and complementary reproductive systems of the male and female must and completely and dependently evolved. In other words, Walt Brown is lying to you.| Just a slight incompleteness in only one of the two would make both reproductive systems useless, and the organism would become extinct. |
Organisms don't become extinct, populations do. The fact of the matter is that sexual reproduction arose among large populations of animals and plants, so therefore a few misfits wouldn't ruin everything.| 2. The physical, chemical, and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible (a). |
And?| 3. The millions of complex products of a male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) must have an affinity for and a mechanical, chemical (b) and electrical (c) compatibility with the eggs of the female reproductive system. |
Indeed. This is somehow evidence against the fact that they do?| 4. The many intricate processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision—processes scientists can describe only in a general sense (d) |
Walt Brown is lying to you again. The processes that occur within cells are messy and chaotic. Cells function by tolerating the stochastic nature of chemistry.| 5. The environment of this fertilized egg, from conception through adulthood and until it also reproduced with another sexually capable adult (who also “accidentally” evolved), would have to be tightly controlled. |
Walt's lying again: organisms that fail to tolerate uncontrolled environments die out rather quickly. Even organisms that don't reproduce sexually.| 6. This remarkable string of “accidents” must have been repeated for millions of species. |
If you think about things differently than Walt Brown does, they're not "accidents," really.| a. In humans and in all mammals, a mother’s immune system, contrary to its normal function, must learn not to attack her unborn baby—half of whom is a “foreign body” from the father. If these immune systems functioned “properly,” mammals—including each of us—would not exist. |
An immune system which attacked its own progeny would, I submit, not be working "properly."| “The mysterious lack of rejection of the fetus has puzzled generations of reproductive immunologists and no comprehensive explanation has yet emerged.” [/color] [Charles A. Janeway Jr. et al., Immuno Biology (London: Current Biology Limited, 1997), p. 12:24.] |
Walt Brown is trying to make you, Pahu, think that "unexplained" means "false," which is just one more lie.| d. For example, how could meiosis evolve? |
Some potential answers.| Furthermore, if sexual reproduction evolved even once, the steps by which an embryo becomes either a male or female should be similar for all animals. Actually, these steps vary among animals (e). |
Why? Why would evolution of sex stop once it has evolved once? Walt's making no sense here.| Evolution theory predicts nature would select asexual rather than sexual reproduction (f). |
The footnote doesn't support that assertion.| But if asexual reproduction (splitting an organism into two identical organisms) evolved before sexual reproduction, how did complex sexual diversity arise—or survive? |
There is plenty of scientific study into that question. Why not examine the work of the experts, instead of Walt Brown's lies?| If life evolved, why would any form of life live long beyond its reproductive age, when beneficial changes cannot be passed on? All the energy expended, supposedly over millions of years, to allow organisms to live beyond reproductive age would be a waste. In other words, why haven’t all organisms evolved reproductive systems that last a lifetime? |
Walt knows nothing about the grandmother effect. Having grandparents (especially grandmothers) increases reproductive success in mammals, at least.| Finally, to produce the first life form would be one miracle. |
No, it was probably inevitable, chemically speaking.| But for natural processes to produce life that immediately had the capability to reproduce itself would be a miracle on top of a miracle (g). |
No, that's a lie on top of a lie.| “So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. C. Williams 1975; John Maynard Smith 1978), there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction. However, evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights—just as early nineteenth-century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modification of Newton’s celestial mechanics.” Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1982), p. 54. |
Note that there exist no "orthodox Darwinians" any longer. These sources are oooooollllld. The youngest of them is from 30 years ago? Does Walt Brown think that scientific investigation of sex ended in 1986? Or does Pahu think that Walt Brown's ancient statements have stood the test of time?
|
You are in evidence free denial of the facts, which are true no matter how old they are. |
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. |
|
|
|
Pahu
Banned
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2016 : 08:24:39 [Permalink]
|
Moon Dust and Debris
If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust—possibly a mile in thickness (a). This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67 of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon (b). [For more details, see pages 577–579.]
a. Before instruments were sent to the Moon, Isaac Asimov made some interesting, but false, predictions. After estimating the great depths of dust that should be on the Moon, Asimov dramatically ended his article by stating:
I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight. Isaac Asimov, “14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year,” Science Digest, January 1959, p. 36.
Lyttleton felt that dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.” Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), p. 72.
Thomas Gold proposed that thick layers of dust accumulated in the lunar maria. [See Thomas Gold, “The Lunar Surface,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, Vol. 115, 1955, pp. 585–604.]
Fears about the dust thickness lessened when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968. However, some concern remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped on the Moon. [See transcript of conversations from the Moon, Chicago Tribune, 21 July 1969, Section 1, p. 1, and Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 19.]
b. “Powdery particles resting on the moon’s surface could form a layer up to 1 millimeter thick every 1,000 years, according to a new analysis.” Meghan Rosen, “Moon Dust Gathers Surprisingly Fast,” Science News, Vol 185, 11 January 2014, p. 6.
Extrapolating this rate of 1 millimeter per 1,000 years would produce a dust layer almost 3 miles thick in 4.5 billion years!
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences43.html
|
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. |
| Edited by - Pahu on 04/27/2016 08:25:21 |
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2016 : 08:36:54 [Permalink]
|
Ho hum. Another example of the 'false dichotomy' fallacy: if I can disprove evolution, therefore creation must be true. It's really the only argument you people have. And it's wrong, it's always been wrong, and it always will be wrong.
Let's cut to the chase: prove creation.
|
Bailey's second law; There is no relationship between the three virtues of intelligence, education, and wisdom.
You fiend! Never have I encountered such corrupt and foul-minded perversity! Have you ever considered a career in the Church? - The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Blackadder II
Baculum's page: http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3947338590 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2016 : 10:31:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Pahu
You are in evidence free denial of the facts, which are true no matter how old they are.
|
Honestly, is that the best you can come up with?
Dave_W answered every sentence of what you copied-and-pasted from elsewhere, and the only thing you could manage was waving it away and basically say "you're wrong" at all of it.
What a disgrace! You're nothing but a parrot, Pahu.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2016 : 12:32:07 [Permalink]
|
| Pahu, beware that feeling the truth does not necessarily mean that you have found it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2016 : 12:43:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Pahu
You are in evidence free denial of the facts... |
The fact that Walt Brown doesn't understand the word "extinct" says that I'm not the one in denial, here.| ...which are true no matter how old they are. |
Actually, Walt Brown was asserting that because scientists didn't completely understand how sexual reproduction evolved in the 1980's, then sexual reproduction couldn't have evolved. That isn't itself a fact (scientific or otherwise), but just an argument from ignorance.
The fact that there's been another 30 years of research on the subject means that those ancient footnotes no longer represent the fore-front of knowledge. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2016 : 18:34:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Pahu
b. “Powdery particles resting on the moon’s surface could form a layer up to 1 millimeter thick every 1,000 years, according to a new analysis.” Meghan Rosen, “Moon Dust Gathers Surprisingly Fast,” Science News, Vol 185, 11 January 2014, p. 6.
Extrapolating this rate of 1 millimeter per 1,000 years would produce a dust layer almost 3 miles thick in 4.5 billion years! |
Evidence of Walt's lies to you: from his own source:...the estimate is flawed because the simulated dust doesn't really mimic moon dust. What's more, other aspects of lunar weather could have perturbed the solar cells, causing similar voltage drops, adds planetary scientist David Williams of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Walt Brown won't tell you the whole story, Pahu, and will never suggest that you, Pahu, look at all available evidence, because Walt is trying to convince you that "the science" agrees with his young-Earth creationist ideology, and lying for Jesus is necessary to do so.
And clearly, if the source were absolutely correct, then the Moon has too much dust to be 6,000 years old, per Walt's own argument and data. But Walt won't tell you that, either.
Another way Walt is lying to you: Issaac Asimov's degrees were in chemistry and biochemistry. So why should we care what he predicted about lunar dust thickness? Walt Brown is trying to convince you that any science degree is as good as an astrophysics degree, which is plainly false.
And the only reason that Walt and other young-Earth creationists have for lying to you is that they think that if the Bible contains even a single error, then maybe it's wrong about the most-important claim, and Jesus didn't die for your sins and thus you'll be damned after death (or at least fail to have life everlasting). So it's not an ideology that Walt is trying to convert you to, it's simple demagoguery, and it clearly demonstrates an utter lack of faith. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2016 : 18:38:27 [Permalink]
|
By the way...Originally posted by Pahu
You are in evidence free denial of the facts... |
That is, itself, an evidence-free denial. How ironic.| ...which are true no matter how old they are. |
So please, show me the scientific evidence of four-legged grasshoppers. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2016 : 18:46:39 [Permalink]
|
Here's a link to Answers in Genesis, a young earth creationist organization that says the moon dust hypothesis is no longer valid as an argument for a young earth.
MOON-DUST ARGUMENT NO LONGER USEFUL
Here's one from Creationism Ministries International with the same title:
Moon-dust argument no longer useful
It seems that Walt Brown is a little out of date even among young earth creationists. Of course, both links say precisely the same thing because creation scientists (cough) tend to live in an echo chamber. But there you have it. I don't even have to cite a truly scientific source for this info because even most creationists have let it go of their mistake. Then again, perhaps they aren't depending on 30 year and older information, as you Pahu are doing. Not that they never do that sort of thing, but the moon dust fallacy became something of an embarrassment to them long ago. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2016 : 07:44:02 [Permalink]
|
"A Fall of Moondust" is a really good sci-fi-novel by Arthur C. Clarke. I'd love to see it made into a movie, it would totally rock in the catastrophe genre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fall_of_Moondust |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Pahu
Banned
USA
19 Posts |
|
|
Pahu
Banned
USA
19 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2016 : 07:52:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Pahu
You are in evidence free denial of the facts... |
The fact that Walt Brown doesn't understand the word "extinct" says that I'm not the one in denial, here.| ...which are true no matter how old they are. |
Actually, Walt Brown was asserting that because scientists didn't completely understand how sexual reproduction evolved in the 1980's, then sexual reproduction couldn't have evolved. That isn't itself a fact (scientific or otherwise), but just an argument from ignorance.
The fact that there's been another 30 years of research on the subject means that those ancient footnotes no longer represent the fore-front of knowledge.
|
How does the 30 years of research on the subject change the facts? Isn't truth true regardless of age? |
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Science Disproves Evolution
