(November 12, 2010 at 3:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Yes, we do use a lot of big words.....

It would help if you actually knew what they really meant when you use them. You will not know what they mean by looking at how they are misused by various creationist bullshitters.

(November 12, 2010 at 3:11 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I have tried my best to dumb things down for you but apparently it has not worked. If you are still confused and find my arguments "impossible" to understand then you can always ask for clarification and I will explain things to you. Does that help?

Creationist arguments are already maximally dumb, dumbing it down further is an impossibility.

However, a person could certainly try, and in the process he certainly could make himself look even dumber then is already implied by the fact that he believes these arguments in the first place.

Statler wrote: "I will prove my position that Creationists can be Scientists..."

Lost your Harbrace again? I didn't say that creationists couldn't be scientists. What I posted was:

Oxymoron = CREATION SCIENCE

(November 12, 2010 at 7:53 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Statler wrote: "I will prove my position that Creationists can be Scientists..."

Lost your Harbrace again? I didn't say that creationists couldn't be scientists. What I posted was:

Oxymoron = CREATION SCIENCE

Repeating your same erroneous argument doesn't make it anymore valid. I already refuted that using logic. Have a good weekend!

(November 12, 2010 at 9:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(November 12, 2010 at 7:53 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Statler wrote: "I will prove my position that Creationists can be Scientists..."

Lost your Harbrace again? I didn't say that creationists couldn't be scientists. What I posted was:

Oxymoron = CREATION SCIENCE

Repeating your same erroneous argument doesn't make it anymore valid. I already refuted that using logic. Have a good weekend!

You refuted nothing, dude. Creationism isn't science and never will be. It is fantasy promoted as science by evangelical liars like you.

---

Statler wrote

Quote:If we are gong to get from a single celled organism to humans, we are going to have to see mutations that increase information- since humans are
significantly more complex than this alleged ancestor was.

From wikipedia:

Quote:The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded in genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins (amino acid sequences) by living cells. The code defines a mapping between tri-nucleotide sequences, called codons, and amino acids. With some exceptions,[1] a triplet codon in a nucleic acid sequence specifies a single amino acid. Because the vast majority of genes are encoded with exactly the same code (see the RNA codon table), this particular code is often referred to as the canonical or standard genetic code, or simply the genetic code. The genetic code is nearly the same for all known organisms.

The only difference is that different species have differing amounts of code. And that amount of code varies depending on the number and type of mutations that arise. And those mutations arise due to selection, rather it be natural or artificial.

From talk.origins:

Quote:...anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of


•increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
•increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
•novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
•novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

2.A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
•Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
•RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
•Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

3.According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

4.The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

---

Statler wrote:

Quote:No new information at the genetic level has ever been increased, not even in bananas.

And you can cite the research that backs up this claim, right?

---

Statler wrote:

Quote:Looks to me like it has eight different meanings, rather than just one like you said.

No sir. You merely posted eight different ways to say the exact same thing. Congratulations.

Orogenicman wrote:

Quote:Morphology is a foundation of comparative anatomy as well as many other biological disciplines. I guess you missed science class in the forth grade, huh?

Statler wrote:

Quote:So? Doesn’t mean it is based on proper logic, it’s still affirming the consequent which is a logical fallacy. Scientists are just as susceptible to the invalid logic bug as the next person.

So morphology, in your view, is illogical, and has no place in science? And you wonder why no one here lends your arguments any credibility.

---

Statler wrote:

Quote:Everything I look at says that Dinosaurs ARE Archosaurs, so I don’t think you can say they came from Archosaurs, you are going to have to be more specific than that. Where are all of your intermediate fossils? I can’t find one example in any of your literature of something that was not completely dinosaur but was a link in the chain to dinosaurs. I thought this evidence was supposed to be overwhelming and easy to find?

From wikipedia:

Quote:Dinosaurs diverged from their archosaur ancestors approximately 230 million years ago during the Middle to Late Triassic period, roughly 20 million years ago.

Also:

http://www.physorg.com/news104073381.html

Transitional fossils is a bullshit argument creationists make because they refuse to accept the evidence that all species are transitional.

---

Statler wrote:

Quote:Oh! So that’s how it works? Well how about you meet me in China.

China doesn't have a creationist museum, dude. They are much smarter than that. Hey, I'm meeting you half way. Consider yourself forunate that I'm such a reasonable man.

Statler wrote:

Quote:Well Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and increase volcanic activity are part of the global flood model, so I am not surprised at all that you find evidence supporting these things.

WTF?

Statler wrote:

Quote:I don’t think you understand what Uniformitarianism is, it’s not the belief that events that happen today also happened in the past. It is the belief that ALL the rates we observed have been constant and uniform for the entirety of Earth’s history. So if we observe a creek in the bottom of a canyon, we can assume that creek carves that canyon, not something else. I actually think you will find that many Geologists don’t agree with this, and are moving away from the teachings of Lyell.

Most geologists don't agree with the above because that is NOT what uniformitarianism is. Uniformitarianism assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. Rates can vary, but the processes and physical laws remain the same (i.e., the processes and physics of erosion as they occur today are the same as they were 500 million years ago. The rates can vary). And Lyell didn't coin the idea, Hutton did.

---

Oh, and Statler. You are right that there is no evidence that you could ever present to convince me or anyone else here of a global flood because it simply doesn't exist and even the notion violates nearly every known law of physics. Sorry ole chap. Santa Claus still doesn't exist.

(November 12, 2010 at 9:08 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(November 12, 2010 at 7:53 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Oxymoron = CREATION SCIENCE

Repeating your same erroneous argument doesn't make it anymore valid. I already refuted that using logic. Have a good weekend!

It kind of does if you 'refuted' a straw man argument, not what he actually posted.

You were proving that a creationist can be a scientist. What Orogenicman was saying was that Creation Science is an oxymoron. You gave it the good old 'College Try' though!

Cheers

Sam

(November 12, 2010 at 5:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: We can make an inference as to what “kinds” meant by just looking at the genetic limitations of specific animals, and yes it is different with different animals. For canines the Biblical “kind” falls at the family level because no matter how much “tweaking” you do, you will never end up with anything other than a canine. It’s not hard to figure out.

And where exactly is the cutoff for a "kind"? Are eagles and toucans the same "kind"? (They're both birds!) Are a cobra and a python the same "kind"? (They're both snakes!) Are a bobcat and a tiger the same "kind"? (They're both cats!)

I asked you this once before and, not surprisingly, you ignored the question.

Quote:Your argument is rather silly anyways because even when you take “kinds” to mean species (which it obviously it didn’t) all the known land species that would have to be taken onto the ark still only take up 36 percent of the total space.

1) How do you come up with this figure?

2) How many total animals do you believe were on this fictitious ark?

Quote:So even when we stoop to play your silly games, we still win.

Yes, if you throw out all reason and logic, I suppose you win. Congratulations!

Wow... this is still going? Amazing.

(November 16, 2010 at 1:09 pm)Loki_999 Wrote: Wow... this is still going? Amazing.

I know, right? I keep thinking I'll unsubscribe from the thread, but it's like watching a trainwreck.