Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals

It's a long story. My first avatar was Lee Van Cleef because I'm quick on the draw. Then, for reasons that I don't entirely remember myself, I affected a gender-unspecific persona for a while (not that it was really different from my usual persona). Sharon Stone in The Quick and the Dead seemed like a more suitable avatar - and it was quite popular. Then, for other reasons that are lost to history, I switched to Sean Connery (Marko Ramius, the Vilnius Schoolmaster, from The Hunt for Red October). That's closer to what I look like in real life. Finally, I realized that I still had the Sharon Stone graphic, so I switched back.

Yeah, switch it up, keep it interesting.Like River Song talking about the lovers she had taken (before recognizing who the Twelfth Doctor was). One was from the Nestene Consciousness but she made sure that he had a few different heads just to keep it interesting.

Girlfriend? Really?I've been taking you for an incel (involuntary celibate), the type of guy who gets bent out of shape because girls won't have anything to do with them (and for good reason -- your troll characteristics would most definitely be a turn-off leading any female to seek all possible exits). I was thinking that it's a very good thing for that Kindergarten down the street from you that Australia has gun control laws.Are you one of those guys who is genuinely surprised to find that girls don't have staples in their navel? Or have I spoiled the surprise? Sorry. Spoilers!

Oh, you went there! To one of the absolutely stupidest creationist "arguments".Classically, it goes something like:

quote:

---

Evolutionist fairy-tale: frog plus lots of time equals prince

---

castle2 did something similar (don't want to waste my time hunting it down again) that went something like: "How long does my bicycle need to wait to become a mountain motorbike?"It's not just time, you fucking idiot! But rather that what actually happens requires time, time which you insist on eliminating.A simpler response would be baking a cake. We mix the ingredients together and put them into a cake pan or form (I'd been making Pineapple Upside Down Cake, so it was my skillet, though my earlier Apfelkuchen would use a pie pan). Put all that into an oven and take it out immediately and expect a cake. Instead, you have uncooked batter. What went wrong? Oh! As a creationist you eliminated time. It takes time for a cake to bake. But what about just mixing everything together and give it time by waiting an hour? Why didn't that work, Atheist!? Sigh! You need both the proper heat (ie, properly heated oven) and time. But still it does take time!Not convinced? OK, I've been thinking about another analogy, one that more closely fits your own misrepresentations of evolution. Hope you enjoy the ride, because it's a road trip from Sydney to Perth (or Perth to Sydney in case there's some cultural thingee with you).According to Google Maps, the distance from Sydney to Perth (or vice versa) is 3932 km (2442.23153 miles) along National Highway 1 and National Highway A1 and the entire journey by car will take 41 hours (so then, average speed of 95.9 kph, or 60 mph). Assuming driving 8 to 12 hours per day, the entire trip should last 5 to three and a half days.OK according to your various messages here, you reject the idea that that journey would be anything but instantaneous (eg, all evolutionary change must occur within a single generation). So your car is parked in Perth, you get into it, close the door, then open the door and get out and expect to be in Sydney. And because you don't find yourself in Sydney, you declare that travel from Perth to Sydney is impossible!OK, it takes 3.5 to 5 days to get there from here (old Maine joke ("Ye can't get the'a from he'a!")). So you get in your car and sit there for 41 hours (or 3.5 to 5 days), get out and you're still in Perth?. Well that proves that it's impossible!Uh, Dude, you gotta start the car. OK, you repeat the experiment and start the car. But the experiment fails when you run out of petrol (AKA gasoline, AKA gas, AKA Benzin) the first day as you sat there still parked in Perth with your engine running. Oh! That definitely proves that it's impossible!Uh, Dude, you gotta actually drive there. I mean, that's how it works, ... Dude. That kind of complete and utter stupidity is exactly what we see you doing with this BS nonsense. And you wonder why we have so little patience with your willful stupidity and trollness?The entire evolutionary process of generation after generation reproducing, each generation being very similar to yet slightly different from the previous, the way that they have to survive mutating slowly over each generation, the more beneficial mutations becoming more predominant in the population because the parents with those beneficial mutations produced more offspring and hence became more represented in the next population, etc, etc, etc over many subsequent generations. Each generation takes a finite amount of time, so many generations take many such amounts of time. Time is not the agent, but rather time is the enabler of many generations of life doing what life does, the net result of which is the best definition for evolution that I can think of.When you get a response of "lots of time", what they are actually saying is "lots of generations" -- lots of generations are needed and lots of generations do require lots of time. And a helluva lot of can happen in that many generations.Remember the actual probabilities. It is very unlikely for something to happen for one individual in one generation, [i]but for it to be unable to happen for the entire population for generation after generation after generation becomes so unlikely as to be virtually impossible, so the inverse, that it could happen at least once, becomes inevitable. And once it happens, it can be inherited and then spread throughout the population from there. I'm still waiting for you to follow up on your mention of the vertebrate eye (OK, you said the human eye, but we did inherit that fully formed from other mammals). It should prove to be ineresting.

more Dredge: flat teeth would break more often trying to pierce the food covering.
hollow teeth would succeed more often trying to pierce the food covering.

Also, flatter tooth snakes did not all die out without reproducing. They became different species.

Yeah, it's a numbers game. For a new trait to outcompete the old trait does not require those with the old trait to die out because they were unable to survive (though I have no doubt that that is part of creationists' misunderstanding of evolution, as in "Then why are there still monkeys?"). Rather, a larger and growing part of the population would have the new trait and a shrinking part the old trait. From there, if the older trait subpopulation became separated then they could form a new species, but I would think a more likely outcome would be that all members of the population would eventually have the new trait.

A similar joke that applies to Dredge, candle2, Kleinman, et al.:

"There's no other way⁶ it could have gotten there⁶"?Really⁶? I'm no computer expert⁶ and with all⁶ due respect⁶, I have⁶ my doubts⁶ about that⁶. Are you sure⁶⁶⁶⁶? "There's nothing⁸ in the software²¹, no glitch, that would do that²³"?Really⁷⁸? Are you sure³⁰ about that⁵⁶⁸?

Yes, you cut and paste from an outside source just as Percy said. Thank you for the confirmation.

I don't⁶ know what you⁴⁵ mean by that⁴³⁹. Confusion⁰ here now⁴³⁵⁷

That's a⁷ terrible thing⁴ to say⁹⁰ to a friend⁶²³. I'm not⁶ trying to cover it up⁷. I didn't know² how that little "6" got there⁵ at the time⁹ ... and I now know³ it wasn't a glitch⁷⁷ in the system¹.
I can assure you ⁴⁵ it was not a remnant⁵ from a quote⁶⁷ and you should⁴ now know⁸⁸⁹ that I wasn't lying⁶ about it⁵⁴⁷³.

Your assurance means nothing. I have no reason to think you're not lying.

Do the⁴ superscript numbers⁷⁸ in this sentence⁹ mean part² of this sentence⁴ was taken from a quote⁵ made by someone⁸⁹ else?

How are you making them?