Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 115 of 199 (31691)
02-07-2003 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by derwood
02-07-2003 2:53 PM


Page, you are eager for another devastating blow?
Let me know and I will discuss your socalled best evidence for common descent in detail and I will once more demonstrate your short sighted vision.
Masochist?
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by derwood, posted 02-07-2003 2:53 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by edge, posted 02-07-2003 8:16 PM peter borger has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 117 of 199 (31699)
02-07-2003 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by edge
02-07-2003 8:16 PM


dear Edge,
Edge: Does this mean that you want to bail out on transitional fossils?
Bail out? On the contrary. Nobody showed anything that is worthy discussing. The Archeopteryx is a bird according to cladist. What else do you have? A scull of a dog-like reptile? Doglike reptile? Reptile? Assumptions, assumptions, and claims based upon assumptions. That's all you have. Anyway, if you can show me the evidence, be my guest.
I guess I can see why you'd want to change the subject and avoid further embarassment. Better just to ignore the data, eh?
PB: If anybody should be embarrased it is Page, not me. If you go to a watch a soccer game the looser wins, I presume. Yes, the evo's logic is amazing. And they are also famous for drawing conclusion (later more about that).
Anyway, present the evidence.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by edge, posted 02-07-2003 8:16 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by edge, posted 02-08-2003 12:43 AM peter borger has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 118 of 199 (31700)
02-07-2003 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by mark24
02-07-2003 4:21 AM


Hi Mark
MP:
You have to be shittin' me!
For at least the sixth time, define transitional form as predicted by the ToE.
PB:
I already did that weeks ago: 'A transition form is a form of transition that forms a transition between forms.'
Brilliant, isn't it
Best wishes,
Peter
"Occam's razor probably is for shaving too".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by mark24, posted 02-07-2003 4:21 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by mark24, posted 02-08-2003 8:27 PM peter borger has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 122 of 199 (31721)
02-08-2003 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by edge
02-08-2003 12:43 AM


Dear Edge,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: Does this mean that you want to bail out on transitional fossils?
Bail out? On the contrary. Nobody showed anything that is worthy discussing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: Well, maybe that has to do with your starting material. We were simply pointing out that evolution explains the fossil record that we know about. Creationism does not.
PB: Assertions based upon assumptions. I am pretty sure that creationists will not agree with you, and are able to present you a scientific alternative. Do you actually read their mails?
From a GUToB stance I would expect that producers and reducers are the first organism to prepare the planet for the coming of man. And now you will point at the dinosaurs. However, do you know what function they had in the big picture? If yes, please let me know.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Archeopteryx is a bird according to cladist. What else do you have?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: We have features showing a transition from reptile to bird.
PB: Do you mean that you and your wife (?) have these features?
Edge: We also pointed out that some have classified it as a reptile in the past. If this was the case, why is/was there confusion as to its classification?
PB: There is confusion because the paradigm is wrong. From a wrong paradigm one cannot arrive at sound conclusions.
Edge: You have studiously avoided these questions and simply declared them 'unworthy.' LOL! That's convenient for you. I think I'll remember that one, PB.
PB: If you think that I am avoiding questions you must be new on this board. However, you are not, so you are obtuse deliberately. I never avoid questions, but for me some questions are not so interesting anymore. Like whether Archaeopteryx is a bird or a reptile. It is neither. It is Archaeopteryx (MPG).
For instance, if we only had known the platypus from the fossil record it probably would have been 'recognised' as a primitive transitionform. It is however nothing but Platypus (MPG). I expect from the fossil record only the Platypus (MPG), probably with minor variations with respect to size of bonestructure.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A scull of a dog-like reptile? Doglike reptile? Reptile? Assumptions, assumptions, and claims based upon assumptions. That's all you have. Anyway, if you can show me the evidence, be my guest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: You have been given some of the evidence, and have chosen to ignore it without an explanation. Why should we bother proceeding?
PB: Well, I like to proceed because I wanna find out whether evolutionism is tenable on scientific grounds. I say it isn't, and I already provided compelling evidence for that. You, on the contrary keep claiming things without provision of compelling --beyond any doubt-- evidence.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB: If anybody should be embarrased it is Page, not me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: You mean you are proud of your ignorance of the fossil record?
PB: It would be nice for evolutionism that you could demonstrate compelling --no doubt-- evidence for evolution from microbe to man. Not assertions based upon assumptions, please. For stories I will attend a Dawkins lecture, so please keep it scientific.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you go to a watch a soccer game the looser wins, I presume. Yes, the evo's logic is amazing. And they are also famous for drawing conclusion (later more about that).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: I don't know what game you are talking about. I am talking about your vacuous definition of transitional fossils.
PB: What is wrong with the definition? Please point out.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, present the evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: This has been done. You have not responded. I am not going to go back on a wild goose chase and dredge up old posts meant for you.
PB: If it has been done that it must have gone by unnoticed. I didn't get an example beyond Archaeopteryx and Cynodontia.
A flying squirrel is on its way to a become a bat, I guess.
It should be clear that I do not belief a single word of evolutionism's claim that a random process gave rise to man from microbe. It is a genetic impossibility.
It's been proven that I was right in my claim on NRM (still denied by the atheists on this board), and I will be right again.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by edge, posted 02-08-2003 12:43 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by edge, posted 02-08-2003 11:49 AM peter borger has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 125 of 199 (31745)
02-08-2003 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by DBlevins
02-08-2003 1:27 AM


[deleted duplication]
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 02-08-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by DBlevins, posted 02-08-2003 1:27 AM DBlevins has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 126 of 199 (31746)
02-08-2003 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by DBlevins
02-08-2003 1:27 AM


Dear DB,
DB: The argument of the fossil record's incompleteness as evidence for your position is specious. The supposed lack of transitional forms has two good reasonings behind it.
PB: I was expecting good reasons.
DB: 1) The fact that everything that dies doesn't become fossilized
PB: Since this is true it would be expected that the fossil record reflects this. Isn't it peculiar that all major transition forms are missing? As if erosion and the fossilisation process is discriminatory.
DB: 2) Evolutionary change is episodic.
PB: No, it is not. Evolution is something that has never been observed. It is not episodic. It is non-existent. This whole episodic thing has been invented to explain away the observation.
DB: By the way, Paleontologists have discovered many examples of transitional forms.
PB: like the Archaeopteryx and cynodontia I guess. I know you will eagerly take them as transitional forms, but nothing transitional here. Simply another complete MPG.
DB: If you have time I recomend you read:
Thewissen, J. G. M. and M. Aria 1994. Fossil evidence for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales. Science 263: 210-12.
PB: Yeah, I know this paper. Fossil evidence of another MPG.
DB: Evolution is a fact: it is the mechanism that is open to debate.
PB: "Variation is a fact: the mechanisms for variation are preexistent in the genome"
DB: By the way, this is my first post but hopefully not my last.
PB: Depends on several factors.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by DBlevins, posted 02-08-2003 1:27 AM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Andya Primanda, posted 02-08-2003 10:08 PM peter borger has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 129 of 199 (31910)
02-10-2003 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by mark24
02-08-2003 8:27 PM


Dear mark,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M:For at least the sixth time, define transitional form as predicted by the ToE.
PB: I already did that weeks ago: 'A transition form is a form of transition that forms a transition between forms.'
Brilliant, isn't it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn't a valid definition. You are failing to elucidate, specifically, committing a fallacy of circular definition.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page not found - Intrepid Software
Circular Definition
The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP: So, no, it's fallacious, & not "brilliant" at all. Try again.
PB: Talking about circular definitions. What about "survival of the fittest"? Darwin's brilliant invention?
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by mark24, posted 02-08-2003 8:27 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by edge, posted 02-10-2003 11:21 PM peter borger has not replied
 Message 131 by edge, posted 02-10-2003 11:21 PM peter borger has not replied
 Message 133 by mark24, posted 02-11-2003 4:10 AM peter borger has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 132 of 199 (31915)
02-10-2003 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by edge
02-08-2003 11:49 AM


dear Edge,
Thanks for you lengthy response. The following is tale telling for mankind:
Edge: I am not a biologist, so I cannot judge your evidence, though I trust others here who are more knowledgable than I.
PB: Trust others? And if they tell you stories? How do you discriminate?
Edge: However, your fossil discussion has provided no evidence at all, much less compelling evidence. And I don't even require 'beyond any doubt' type of evidence. I'm easy to please.
PB: So you don't require THE evidence and you are easy to please? Well that explains a lot, isn't it.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by edge, posted 02-08-2003 11:49 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by edge, posted 02-11-2003 9:21 PM peter borger has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 134 of 199 (31970)
02-11-2003 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by mark24
02-11-2003 4:10 AM


Dear mark,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP: So, no, it's fallacious, & not "brilliant" at all. Try again.
PB: Talking about circular definitions. What about "survival of the fittest"? Darwin's brilliant invention?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP: What of it? I'm not arguing it, it's irrelevant to the discussion.
PB: So, you agree that Darwin set up a tautology? If he is allowed to set up a tautology, why not me?
MP: Now, define "transitional form" as a prediction of the ToE.
PB: Since you agree not with my definition why don't you define it yourself. O, you already did that? An organism halfway becoming another organism? Who is going to judge that it is halfway? You? Or me? Evo's or creo's? That's the question. It all depends on the paradigm.
It is clear, however, that there used to be flying, unfeathered MPGs. Why is it so hard to get that there were also flying, feathered MPGs like Archaeopteryx? We still see that today. Unfeathered flying MPGs (commonly known as bats) and feathered flying MPGs (commonly named birds). [Sometimes they even have claws to climb (Hoatzin MPG)]
Biology with the GUToB is easy.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by mark24, posted 02-11-2003 4:10 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by mark24, posted 02-11-2003 7:32 PM peter borger has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 138 of 199 (31988)
02-11-2003 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by mark24
02-11-2003 7:32 PM


Dear mark,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP: Now, define "transitional form" as a prediction of the ToE.
PB: Since you agree not with my definition why don't you define it yourself. O, you already did that?
An organism halfway becoming another organism? Who is going to judge that it is halfway? You? Or me? Evo's or creo's? That's the question. It all depends on the paradigm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP: Er, I DID define "transitional form", but it has nothing to do with your irrelevant parody.
PB: Since you are the evo, you give me your definition and I will have a look at it.
MP: If you want to see what it was, track back through this thread, I'm not doing the work for you.
PB: according to you a transitionform is an organism that is halfway becoming another organism, if I recall properly?
MP: Now, for the 8th time, define "transitional form" as predicted by the ToE. We both know you won't, because that would be an admission that the ToE's predictions are borne out in the fossil record, & that can't be allowed, can it?
PB: I had a look at the fossil record and if the ToE has been born out of this record (18th-19th century is even worse) it must have been done by somebody with a huge imagination.
MP: You'd get caned if you actually defined it. This is the worst sort of intellectual dishonesty: sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, & going "lalalalala".
PB: It isn't 'lalalalala', it is hummmmmmmmmmmmmm. For a better effect of hearing nothing. Listen, Mark, as long as I am able to defend my position better than any evo on the board, I am allowed to do that.
MP: The longer you hold out, the more ridiculous, evasive, & dishonest you look. In all honesty, Peter, this is the only reason I continually ask you to commit yourself, it makes you look sillier, & sillier.
Not that most posters here need convincing, but the lurkers have seen your evasion, they've seen your fallacious definition, & they've seen your equivocation. What will they think when you try to force GUToB down their throats at a later date? Not much, I'll warrant, they know how you operate.
PB: I only demonstrate that this is a useless discussion. It is always about definitions. I remember a 'mind control' series called "A beautiful accident" and a lot of leading scientist were involved, including Gould, Freeman, a leading neuroscientsist, a leading physicist. And everyone was eagerly awaiting the debate between these 'wise' men. To provide an answer to what everybody wants to know: the origin. Then they started to discuss definitions. For two hours. Nothing was contributed, the answers not provided. There probably are no answers. So, make up your own definitions and provide your own answers. You will never be disappointed. And I don't mind.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by mark24, posted 02-11-2003 7:32 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by edge, posted 02-11-2003 9:53 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 150 by mark24, posted 02-12-2003 6:31 AM peter borger has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 141 of 199 (31997)
02-11-2003 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by edge
02-11-2003 9:53 PM


Hi Edge,
Still around?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MP: Er, I DID define "transitional form", but it has nothing to do with your irrelevant parody.
PB: Since you are the evo, you give me your definition and I will have a look at it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edge: Oh good. We WOULD love to have your opinion.
PB: I said, I will have a look. It doesn't say I will give an opinion.
Edge: But you don't seem to get the point. If you do not tell us what you would accept as a definition, how can we ever give you the example you request? Actually, this is an old creatinist trick, but you do it so well...
PB: No, you don't get it. If I would agree with a definition from an evolutionary stance I would agree with evolutionism and I would deny my own paradigm. Since the two paradigms are not compatible, we live in a different worlds.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by edge, posted 02-11-2003 9:53 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by wj, posted 02-11-2003 10:54 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 149 by Peter, posted 02-12-2003 6:30 AM peter borger has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 143 of 199 (32001)
02-12-2003 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by wj
02-11-2003 10:54 PM


dear WJ,
WJ: If you expect to have you gutob to be tanek as a serious alternative to the theory of evolution then it has to be compatible with the fossil record. A significant feature of the fossil record is the presence of transitional forms. Your gutob needs to explain them.
PB: If you are able to demonstrate an organisms that you qualify as TF in an evolutionary sense, then I will explain them from GUToB.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by wj, posted 02-11-2003 10:54 PM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by wj, posted 02-12-2003 12:27 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 151 by mark24, posted 02-12-2003 6:45 AM peter borger has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 145 of 199 (32003)
02-12-2003 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by wj
02-12-2003 12:27 AM


hi WJ,
Are you serious?
I asked for a TF and you present me an ancient otter.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by wj, posted 02-12-2003 12:27 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by wj, posted 02-12-2003 1:30 AM peter borger has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 147 of 199 (32016)
02-12-2003 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by wj
02-12-2003 1:30 AM


Do you have a serious example?
This another MPG.
Best Wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by wj, posted 02-12-2003 1:30 AM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by wj, posted 02-12-2003 5:30 AM peter borger has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 152 of 199 (32023)
02-12-2003 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by wj
02-12-2003 5:30 AM


Dear WJ, Peter, Mark,
Listen, guys, Hans Thewissen has a very nice job. He is traveling all over the world, digs a bit in dirt here and there, in the mountains, in Pakistan, returns home to the Netherlands with a crate of rocks, fossils, and then he presents his Ambulocetus (MPG) to Science as a whale (ungalata, cetacea). He's doing fine.
However, if you have a close look at what he put together it is not a whale. It doesn't even look like a whale. If this is a whale than it can also be an 12 ft otter. If it is a whale it should be more like a cow. It is no cow, however, and it doesn't even look like a cow. Okay, if you look very hard it could be a cow since it has four legs and a head (No horns, though). So, is it a cow? Or is it an otter? A whale perhaps? That's a lot of questions. DNA analysis will shed light on the issue, I guess. But probably not. No DNA.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by wj, posted 02-12-2003 5:30 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by mark24, posted 02-12-2003 8:15 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 155 by Andya Primanda, posted 02-12-2003 9:41 AM peter borger has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024