Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 5:07 PM
45 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, JonF, PaulK, ringo (5 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,498 Year: 3,535/19,786 Month: 530/1,087 Week: 120/212 Day: 36/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Author Topic:   Discussion on Creation article...
mr_matrix
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 95 (331191)
07-12-2006 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
07-06-2006 10:30 PM


Re: More Fallacies by RAZD
ALL you are making is claims. You have not SHOWN anything, except a capacity for argument from incredulity and ignorance.

What you call ignorance is creation logic that you do not understand. If creation logic does not meet with your evolutionist logic then it is a matter of disagreement and not ignorance. Therefore, you have no right to claim that creationists are ignorant, prticularly when you are the one who filled his posts with evolution fantasies. I have not seen a single evidence to your claims. All you did is bringing facts together to form an evolutionary model with your evolutionist biased reasoning. Because you couldnt counter with supporting evidence you have stated the following:

Nor am I claiming "proof" in my answers, (1) because proof is not possible in science, and (2) because it is not necessary to refute your unsubstantiated claims - all that is necessary is to demonstrate that it is possible.

This means that all your claims are based on mostly imagination and no proofs. A scientific scenrio with no proof is no more important than a fantasy tale. You have made some scenarios regarding a species and at the same time some other evolutionists somewhere in the world will make their own speculative scenarios regarding the same speices. Therefore, evolution is full of speculations based on some individuals preconceptions. Since all evolutionist scenarios are possibilities and not facts, their accuracy is also a probability and therefore, it would be foolish to have an absolute belief in them as a definite fact that substitute creation. This gives evolution a weak basis and does not provide any scientific proof to it. No wonder why evolutionists counter every difficult question to their theory with an imaginary scenario.

evolution happens, it has been observed, it has been documented, it is so well observed and documented that creationists cannot argue the point anymore (other than to apply the strawman of micro\macro).

What evolutionists consider observations of evolution is no more than observing micro changes. However, these minor changes cannot lead to the formation of entirely new species not even in many centuries. There is no law in nature that allows a species to turn into other species because all species are distinct and have their own gene pools. Micro changes in a population swing back and forth like a pendelum and do not flow in one direction to evolve species. If evolution is true, why dont you mention the latest species formed during the past few years so we can see evolution?
Note that mentioning few newly discovered species is not the answer, because they are newly discovered by us and not newly evolved.

I have already posted tis link:
http://www.darwinism-watch.com/darwinist_prop_13.php
It shows you why convergent evolution is more like a fantasy rather than a scientific approach.
I know you posted it. I looked at it and wondered how anyone could think it had any valid information

Just turning your back on the link and saying that it is ignorant doesnot make it true. The article is based on true facts based on real sources and everything is well referenced. In addition to many quotes by many scientists and even evolutionists. The point of the article is to show the invalid logic behind convergent evolution and that it is just a fantasy. Nature is full of examples of homoplasy (analogous features) that give evolutionists a hard time in explaining their origin. This high degree of homoplasy in living things obscures the evolutionary phylogenic diagrams. Therefore they can only afford saying two words: "convergent evolution" and no scientific supporting evidence.

It is the differences rather than the similarities that show convergent evolution

I know this, but the question is how two or more totally different species that are not related to each other can possess very similar features? I can clearly see that this is an evidence of common design not convergent evolution fanatasy that has no scientific value or evidence. This is a quote from the link above that is made by evolutionist Frans de Waal:
"One big question concerns convergent evolution-the finding that life comes up with remarkably similar solutions to the same problem more than once. The camera eye is a good example. What is it that makes life navigate towards particular solutions? Is there a deeper pattern or set of principles at work, some kind of underlying "landscape" across which life is forced to move?"(reference in the linked article)
If the article is full of misinformation as you say, then why dont you check the quotes in it like this one.

The Tasmanian "wolf" had a pouch and was a marsupial and not a wolf at all. The shape of the head is similar but not identical, and there are significant differences that tell a thorough investigator that they are indeed different taxons. Why does your website show only the top of the skull when the whole skeleton is readily available for both animals?

There are differences between marsupials and placentals, but there are striking more similarities. Evolutionists say this is example of convergent evolution but how? Tazmenian wolves behave just like normal wolves (with few differences) they are still carnivores that run and hunt animals exactly just like other wolves (hunting is not the only similarity). Even though there is slight difference in locomotion, but they still resemble placental wolves in striking similarity (even in the shape of the skull), just making a fuss about few differences and elaborating on them does not make the two wolves totally different from each other. Similarly, other marsupial animals (monkeys, squirels, bears...etc) behave in strikigly similar manner to that of the placental counterparts despite some physiological differences. The question here is how? Did Australia meet very similar chances and mutations to evolve similar species to other continents just from one ancestral marsupial? What we see here is examples of NOT analogous features, but rather, analogous "species". There is no such thing as analogous species in evolution but they do exist in nature (i.e. marsupials and placentals). You cannot also claim that the animals existed on both continents before they seperated becuase this would not be an example of convergence. Also, most of todays marsupials didnot exists at the time of seperation, this is what the fossil record say.

As to helicopters being designed based on hummers that is patently false. NO hummingbird has rotating wings on top of their bodies, just for starters. A helicopter is just a plane with a big propeller on top and very little wing.

Rotating wings on top of the body? This is pure incrudility and misunderstanding of the argument. How about a simple lesson in aerodynamics for beginners? In any airplane we find wings, whether it is the old Wright brothers' plane or modern ones. Why is there wings? Simple, wings are there to generate lift. The wings are slanted so that the air above the wing flows faster that below it. This creates a difference of pressure which lifts the airplane upwards and make it fly. Where did this idea of wings originally come from? From BIRDS, from the already existing aerodynamic design in birds. Non of the sites you searched will say this because it is implied common sense and everyone knows that birds have wings and aerodynamic disign (do you know that as well?). So if you deny that airplanes are based on birds then you might as well deny that birds have wings.
Now in regard to helicopters, they fly in different way than normal airplanes. In a normal plane, the air flows horizontally but in copters it flows vertically allowing it to hover and rise vertically. This feature already exists in hummingbirds as well as other insects. The majority of birds use horizontal air flow to generate lift, while the hummingbird uses its rapid wing flapping back and forth to generate vertical lift This is one of the factors that make its flight unique (You can check hummingbirds in wikipedia to see other features of hummingbirds). A helicopter's propellor performs the same function except that it rotates in a cycle while hummingbirds use their high metabolism to make a rapid wing flapping in the shape of 8 to generate the vertical lift. The helicopter design is borrowed from the alredy existing design of vertical lift that is found in hummingbirds and other insects.

There is intellegent design in many species and systems in nature. There is too mush design to be ignored. In any designed system there must be a designer, this is an evident fact.

Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 07-06-2006 10:30 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jazzns, posted 07-12-2006 3:48 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 07-12-2006 4:38 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2006 11:19 PM mr_matrix has responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1986 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 32 of 95 (331195)
07-12-2006 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mr_matrix
07-12-2006 3:30 PM


Re: More Fallacies by RAZD
I am calling foul.

Similarly, other marsupial animals (monkeys, squirels bears...etc) behave in strikigly similar manner to that of the placental counterparts despite some physiological differences.

There is no such thing as a marsupial monkey, squirl, or bear and I challange you to show that there is. A Koala "Bear" is not a real bear even though we call it that because it is a generic term.

You are also totally wrong about the tasmanian wolf. It is similar to other wolves only in the same way that all other carnivors are similar to wolves. There are more similarities between tigers and wolves then there are between wolves and the tasmanian wolf.

Using your same argument, dolphins and sharks are more similar because they both swim in the ocean and eat other fish. I mean common there are only very minor differences such as how they breed, breathe, and swim.

Tasmanian wolves breed and raise their children fundamentally differently then any placental wolf. This is a HUGE difference. There are also MAJOR anatomical differences between the skull structure of the tasmanian wolf and other wolves. The people who claim similarity are doing so on the basis of 'pointy nose', 'sharp teeth', 'eats meat'. If you need to reduce taxonomy to a game of "Which one is not like the other" then please take your argument out of science and into Sesame Street where it belongs.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mr_matrix, posted 07-12-2006 3:30 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 33 of 95 (331206)
07-12-2006 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mr_matrix
07-12-2006 3:30 PM


Re: More Fallacies by RAZD
What evolutionists consider observations of evolution is no more than observing micro changes.

By so stating, you only demonstrate your ignorance about evolution.

There are differences between marsupials and placentals, but there are striking more similarities.

Yet another demonstration of your ignorance.

Similarly, other marsupial animals (monkeys, squirels, bears...etc) behave in strikigly similar manner to that of the placental counterparts despite some physiological differences.

What's a marsupial monkey? I haven't come across those. Are you referring to this creature, which isn't at all similar to a monkey?

And what's a marsupial squirrel? Are you referring to Petaurus norfolcensis, which is not at all similar to a squirrel.

When you refer to marsupial bear, are you talking about the koala? It isn't at all similar to a bear. And it eats only eucalyptus leaves, while most bears are omnivores.

I wonder if this creationist web page is where you are getting your misinformation. I'll quote one comment from the page, because it is so absurd that it is hilarious:

quote:

Unknown to many, there was a marsupial wolf. The Thylacine is more commonly called the Tasmanian Tiger because it had lateral stripes across its back, but the animal was a dog.

You've got to love that matter-of-fact assertion "but the animal was a dog". Only a hopelessly gullible fundie would be so foolish as to fall for such obvious nonsense.


Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mr_matrix, posted 07-12-2006 3:30 PM mr_matrix has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nwr, posted 07-12-2006 6:24 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 34 of 95 (331254)
07-12-2006 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nwr
07-12-2006 4:38 PM


Addemdum
It seems that some creationist sites are referring to cuscus as a marsupial monkey. This creature is still very different from a monkey.


Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nwr, posted 07-12-2006 4:38 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 35 of 95 (331356)
07-12-2006 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by mr_matrix
07-12-2006 3:30 PM


mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
What you call ignorance is creation logic that you do not understand. If creation logic does not meet with your evolutionist logic then it is a matter of disagreement and not ignorance.

ROFLOL. I suppose you also have your own kind of math so that the time adds up correctly? 2+2= whatever I want it to? Is that how you get a young earth?

No there are not different kinds of logic -- there is logic and there is delusion. Now what I have used (and you presumably label "evolutionist logic" seeing as it has shown your argument to be riddled with real logical fallacies ...) meets the formal criteria of logic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

As a formal science, logic investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments, both through the study of formal systems of inference and through the study of arguments in natural language. The scope of logic can therefore be very large, ranging from core topics such as the study of fallacies and paradoxes, to specialist analyses of reasoning such as probably correct reasoning and arguments involving causality. Logic is also commonly used today in argumentation theory.

The formal definition and criteria of logic apply to everyone. If what you use does not meet the definition and criteria of logic, then you are not using logic but something else. If you call it logic you are deluded.

See how it works?

This means that all your claims are based on mostly imagination and no proofs. A scientific scenrio with no proof is no more important than a fantasy tale.

The difference between science and fantasy is evidence. Science is supported by evidence, the theories are not just imagination but logically (again by the formal definition and criteria) derived from the evidence.

It doesn't stop there either -- it makes predictions that if {X} is true then {Y} will happen.

And it doesn't stop there -- science then tests those predictions to see if they pan out.

The results of those tests are new evidence -- evidence that either matches the predictions (thus indicating that the theory CAN be true), or that doesn't match the predictions (thus indicating that the theory CAN'T be true).

Notice that the best you can get is an indication that the theory CAN be true. The more a theory is tested the stronger that sense of CAN be true become, but it never becomes MUST be true: that requires absolute proof.

The difference between fantasy and science is that it is fairly easy to show that fantasy CAN'T be true unless there are substantial changes to the way we understand the rest of the universe.

Thus if you claim evolution is a fantasy, you should be able to demonstrate that it CAN'T be true. Making fantasy claims does not do that.

Absent such a demonstration the logical (again by the formal definition and criteria) conclusion is that it CAN be true: the realms {CAN} and {CAN'T} are mutually exclusive.

Therefore, evolution is full of speculations based on some individuals preconceptions.

This is leaping to a conclusion based on falsified precepts and erroneous information. That is fantasy logic, ie - delusion.

People with entirely different backgrounds, culture, and education come to the same conclusions when they do the same tests, they each have different preconceptions, but the result is the same.

Your conclusion has been invalidated as the fantasy it is.

Note that mentioning few newly discovered species is not the answer, because they are newly discovered by us and not newly evolved.

Because you are ignorant of the facts does not change them or make them go away. Note (1) that AiG acknowledges that speciation occurs, as they concede that the evidence is too overwhelming to ignore or try to hand wave away and (2) there are species that have evolved that could not have lived previously - consider the nylon eating bacteria: why\how would it eat nylon before that was invented?

Willfull ignorance of evidence is not logic, it is delusion.

Just turning your back on the link and saying that it is ignorant doesnot make it true. The article is based on true facts based on real sources and everything is well referenced.

ROFLOL. You wish. I also showed at least ONE of its misrepresentations to be false. It is falsified by a number of facts that have already been discussed. The bat and bird wing, the thylacine and wolf skull top, etc. are only superficially similar, and have evolved under similar circumstances to meet similar needs, flight and biting prey.

Did you even look at the pictures that I linked for the wolf and thylacine? Do you still think they look like similar animals?

Look at this picture:
Thylacine with wide open jaw

Now here's a wolf:
http://www.geocities.com/dragonfuzz13/WolfSnarl03.jpg
(fromhttp://www.geocities.com/dragonfuzz13/wolf)

Notice when you look from the front how different the teeth are in the thylacine mouth than in the wolf. Perhaps you can find a better picture of a wolf with it's jaw wide open to show how similar they are?

Your website only shows the view from one angle because they want you to think they are more similar than they really are: this - at best - is misrepresenting the evidence in order to fool the gullible.

I said it was full of false and misleading information because that is easy to demonstrate, not because I'm turning my back on it: I'm looking it full in the face and laughing at it's ignorance.

Nature is full of examples of homoplasy (analogous features) that give evolutionists a hard time in explaining their origin.

In your dreams maybe. There is no difficulty in explaining the different evolution of bat and bird wings. Evolutionists are not fooled by superficial resemblances, they also know of many other forms of flight - insects, flying fish, gliding squirrels and frogs and snakes as well as prehistoric organisms like pterodactyls - forms of flight where the lack of similarity tells the logical (again by the formal definition and criteria) person evaluating the evidence that this is not a difficult thing to evolve, much the way webbed feet are not difficult to evolve for all the wide variety of webfooted animals in semi-aquatic environments.

The definition of homoplasy, btw, is:

ho·mo·pla·sy n.
Correspondence between parts or organs arising from
evolutionary convergence.
(yellow for emPHAsis)

I know this, but the question is how two or more totally different species that are not related to each other can possess very similar features? I can clearly see that this is an evidence of common design not convergent evolution fanatasy that has no scientific value or evidence.

Well I look at the bat and the bird and the wolf and the thylacine and I see very different features, so this "very similar features" must be another piece of your "creationist logic" that denies the evidence in favor of some fantasy or other.

Convergent features serve similar purposes - the purpose of wings, whether bird, bug, bat, boa, beast or "whirlybird" seed or fish, is to fly. How that can happen is a matter of aerodynamics, how the aerodynamics is realized depends on what "equipment" was available to modify by gradual processes over time. There is nothing that prevents similar shapes from occurring and can easily be many reasons for similar shapes to occur. The aerodynamics of flight is one of those over-riding reasons for similar end results -- it just works better if you follow the basic "rules" of what makes a good wing. The surprise would be if similar features did NOT evolve for animals in similar {habitats\eco-niches\situations}, THAT would be contrary to evolutionary predictions.

Convergent features serve similar purposes - the purpose of jaws, whether wolf or thylacine or velociraptor, is to bite and hold onto prey. How that can happen is a matter of {muscle\jaw\tooth} dynamics and how that dynamics is realized depends on what "equipment" was available to modify by gradual processes over time. There is nothing that prevents similar shapes from occurring and can easily be many reasons for similar shapes to occur. The dynamics of biting is one of those over-riding reasons for similar end results -- it just works better if you follow the basic "rules" of what makes a good bite. The surprise would be if similar features did NOT evolve for animals in similar {habitats\eco-niches\situations}, THAT would be contrary to evolutionary predictions.

Convergent features serve similar purposes - the purpose of webbed feet, whether duck or frog or lizard or platypus or ferret, is to propel an organism through water. How that can happen is a matter of hydrodynamics and how that hydrodynamics is realized depends on what "equipment" was available to modify by gradual processes over time. There is nothing that prevents similar shapes from occurring and can easily be many reasons for similar shapes to occur. The hydrodynamics of webbed feet is one of those over-riding reasons for similar end results -- it just works better if you follow the basic "rules" of what makes a good propulsion system. The surprise would be if similar features did NOT evolve for animals in similar {habitats\eco-niches\situations}, THAT would be contrary to evolutionary predictions.

This is a quote from the link above that is made by evolutionist Frans de Waal:
"One big question concerns convergent evolution-the finding that life comes up with remarkably similar solutions to the same problem more than once. The camera eye is a good example. What is it that makes life navigate towards particular solutions? Is there a deeper pattern or set of principles at work, some kind of underlying "landscape" across which life is forced to move?"(reference in the linked article)
If the article is full of misinformation as you say, then why dont you check the quotes in it like this one.

I notice it doesn't give de Waal's answer to the question he posed. Did you look up the reference to see the actual quote? How about you find the quote from Frans de Waal with the rest of what he says and post that instead of the quote mined snippet? (And btw, quote mining is another form of misrepresentation - making people appear to say things they are not saying.)

There are differences between marsupials and placentals, but there are striking more similarities. Evolutionists say this is example of convergent evolution but how? Tazmenian wolves behave just like normal wolves (with few differences) they are still carnivores that run and hunt animals exactly just like other wolves (hunting is not the only similarity).

Again, someone has been feeding you misinformation or you are just not checking the facts.

Being a carnivore is hardly what I would call a "striking similarity" -- seeing as animals are classified into three main groups: carnivores, herbivore, and omnivores. Must be that "creationist logic" (delusion) again. :rolleyes:

That they both hunt prey is also just astounding -- something I would never expect of two different carnivores eh? ROFLOL.

Finally, if you actually ever read the site I linked about the thylacine you will see that it is a slow runner (wolves are fast) as well as the fact that it stands on it's hind feet ("sole walking") in a manner that wolves do not do, and the manner in which they use their legs running is different - they "pace" (the "gait of a horse in which both feet on one side are lifted and put down together") to a wolfs "gallop" (the "fast gait of a horse; a two-beat stride during which all four legs are off the ground simultaneously") - definitions from dictionary.com. The thylacine site also says:

Despite the occasional claims that thylacines work together in hunting packs, E. Guiler states that there is no actual evidence for this. It has been reported however, that thylacines will lie in wait in a cat-like manner to ambush prey

Even though there is slight difference in locomotion, but they still resemble placental wolves in striking similarity (even in the shape of the skull), just making a fuss about few differences and elaborating on them does not make the two wolves totally different from each other.

The really ridiculous thing about this is that this has got to be one of the worst examples of convergent evolution, and you are really trying to force things to appear more similar than they really are -- either you are really misinformed or you are intentionally misinforming yourself.

How does the fact that two animals both have jaws with teeth in them that they use to bite prey show a relationship that is more puzzling than convergent evolution?

Other similarities noted on the website on thylacines mentioned and linked before:

The form of the thylacine's stripe pattern is remarkably similar to that of the African Zebra duiker (Cephalophus zebra).

the thylacine does show extensive similarities to the Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) in limb length to body length, as well as to Dasyurus.

These similarities are just as important as the superficial one with the wolf jaw. Are you now going to claim that they behave just like small antelopes or leopards?

Similarly, other marsupial animals (monkeys, squirels, bears...etc) behave in strikigly similar manner to that of the placental counterparts despite some physiological differences.

The other animals are marsupials and not monkeys, squirrels or bears. That they have common names noting superficial similarities does not make them the same kind of animal.

Look at the pictures of what these animals look like and you will see more resemblance to an opossum than a monkey or squirrel. The Koala is also not at all like a bear. Sheeeesh, talk about GULLIBLE.

Rotating wings on top of the body? This is pure incrudility and misunderstanding of the argument.

You were the one that said that the helicopter was designed based on the hummingbird. The helicopter has a rotating set of wings, not flapping ones.

How about a simple lesson in aerodynamics for beginners? In any airplane we find wings, whether it is the old Wright brothers' plane or modern ones. Why is there wings? Simple, wings are there to generate lift. The wings are slanted so that the air above the wing flows faster that below it. This creates a difference of pressure which lifts the airplane upwards and make it fly. Where did this idea of wings originally come from? From BIRDS, from the already existing aerodynamic design in birds.

You said helicopter based on hummingbird, now you are equivocating and moving the goal posts. Typical.

{abe}

mr_matrix writes:

Message 25
The design of the helicopter is based on the design in the hummingbird's flight.

I'm glad you realize that this was an erroneous statement: what you say now contradicts that.
You need a lesson in aerodynamics much more than me -- you misunderstand it. Badly. The lift generated from aerodynamic designed wings is due to the curvature in cross-section, not to any "slant" - you should be talking about {angle of attack} instead of "slant" if you are talking aerodynamics. The angle of attack determines the degree of lift, airflow redirection, and the degree of drag involved. But aerodynamically designed wings are not necessary for flight -- they are just more efficient at it. This is why a bird wing is more efficient than a bat wing: one is more aerodynamically shaped than the other. But flat wings also can be used for flight, not because the generate "lift" (technically they don't) but because they redirect the flow of air. As long as they are pushed through the air fast enough they will fly, but an aerodynamically designed shape will fly with less pushing force.
{/abe}

The first designs people used to try to fly were copies of the wings of birds - model something that works. They failed. Then they went with shapes based on kites (you know those toys on the ends of strings? They've been around a loooong time eh?) and the first successful wings -- Wright Bros? Sure looks a LOT like a kite.

The more we learned about aerodynamics the better we understood the mechanisms of flight. Since then the wings have evolved in design to be somewhat similar to a bird wind in cross-section -- not in overall shape or in manner of usage.

Designed wings have a high aspect ratio, much higher than the highest used by birds. Why? Because it is more efficient, and we can use structural elements to support such a shape without the limitations that birds have. Look DOWN on a plane and see how different it is from a bird.

The reason that birds and airplane wings both conform to aerodynamics is because of aerodynamics not because of any necessary design: that is the way flight works best.

Now in regard to helicopters, they fly in different way than normal airplanes. In a normal plane, the air flows horizontally but in copters it flows vertically allowing it to hover and rise vertically.

Absolutely false. You are really misinformed - or deluded.

The helicopter blades rotate in a horizontal (normally for lift) direction -- they are passing horizontally through the air to generate lift in exactly the same way as if the air was flowing horizontally over wings.

The reason they do this is that the aerodynamics are the same for the helicopter blade as it is for an airplane wing.

. This feature already exists in hummingbirds as well as other insects. The majority of birds use horizontal air flow to generate lift, while the hummingbird uses its rapid wing flapping back and forth to generate vertical lift

Other insects? :rolleyes: you are either very confused, very misinformed or very ignorant. Or mistaken.

The hummingbird generates lift in exactly the same way as other birds, because that is the way aerodynamics works.

There is intellegent design in many species and systems in nature. There is too mush design to be ignored. In any designed system there must be a designer, this is an evident fact.

ROFLOL. Logical fallacies again.

All you need is a system to select more optimum features for a certain behavior. Natural selection is that system. There is no need for a designer to make something better, and that is all that is necessary for evolution to work -- gradual change in species over time, natural selection of organisms that are more fit for an environment than others: eyes, webs, wings, just modifications of existing features to the advantage of those with them.

There is too mush design to be ignored.

There is too much BAD design, LACK of design, FAILURE of design to be ignored.

The problem with any theory (and we'll assume for the sake of argument that somewhere "intellegent design" has one) is that it doesn't need to be based only on some possible evidence supporting it -- it needs to explain ALL the evidence, especially the evidence that CONTRADICTS the theory.

{abe} Remember above where I said:

The results of those tests are new evidence -- evidence that either matches the predictions (thus indicating that the theory CAN be true), or that doesn't match the predictions (thus indicating that the theory CAN'T be true).

You need to have a concept that deals with the CAN'T be true evidence rather than just the CAN be true evidence to have a valid concept.{/abe}

It's even worse when you don't have a theory but a fantasy based on wishful thinking.

The argument that there appears to be design therefore there must be design is just a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. That means it is a fantasy ... or a delusion.

If you are going to argue for design, then you need to address both sides of the design controversy, right?

http://< !--UB www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=158&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=158&m=1">www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=158&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=158&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=10&t=158&m=1< !--UE-->

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added info, changed subtitle


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by mr_matrix, posted 07-12-2006 3:30 PM mr_matrix has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-16-2006 2:41 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 56 by mr_matrix, posted 08-11-2006 2:10 PM RAZD has responded

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 3470 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 36 of 95 (332226)
07-16-2006 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
07-12-2006 11:19 PM


Re: mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
Hi RAZD,
Would you please clairify the sentence:

If you are going to argue for design, then you need to address both sides of the design controversy, right?

Please substitute the word evolution for the word design (both places, of course) then give some examples? Since I don't understand what design is but do understand what evolution is, the explanation will be easier for me to understand from the evolution perspective.

Thank you in advance,
Bob, Alice, and Eve
PS: I see that name-calling and derogatory statements are still the evidence of choice here. Hopefully this short conversation will be simple enough that that level of complexity will not be required.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 07-12-2006 11:19 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Belfry, posted 07-16-2006 4:07 PM BobAliceEve has not yet responded
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2006 10:00 PM BobAliceEve has responded

    
Belfry
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 37 of 95 (332234)
07-16-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by BobAliceEve
07-16-2006 2:41 PM


Re: mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
BobAliceEve writes:

RAZD writes:

If you are going to argue for design, then you need to address both sides of the design controversy, right?


Please substitute the word evolution for the word design (both places, of course) then give some examples? Since I don't understand what design is but do understand what evolution is, the explanation will be easier for me to understand from the evolution perspective.

RAZD will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's talking about the way that creationism/ID proponents tend to focus on examples that are suggestive of good design, while ignoring the many examples which (if designed) would suggest a poor, incompetent, capricious, or malicious Designer. The statement makes more sense if you follow the link he provided to the Silly Design Institute thread.

It doesn't really work if you just substitute the word "evolution," because evolutionary theory fits with the evidence (as it is evidence-based).

Edited by Belfry, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-16-2006 2:41 PM BobAliceEve has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 38 of 95 (332377)
07-16-2006 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by BobAliceEve
07-16-2006 2:41 PM


Re: mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
Belfry has it pretty well covered.

Would you please clairify the sentence:

It is more fully described on the link provided -- it's another thread on this forum so any discussion of this alternative design theory should be addressed on that thread rather than here, so this one can focus on the ... what's the topic? oh yeah, the creatortionista article... misinformation.

(I thought it was supposed to be bob and carol and ted and alice ...?)

PS: I see that name-calling and derogatory statements are still the evidence of choice here.

Showing concepts to be false is neither. Noting when people demonstrate or virtually admit to being ignorant of certain facts is not either as well. Do you have something else in mind?

Calling ignorance is not a "derogatory" statement -- it is an easily cured condition (you can learn). Everyone is ignorant about something.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-16-2006 2:41 PM BobAliceEve has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-17-2006 4:43 AM RAZD has responded

  
BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 3470 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 39 of 95 (332447)
07-17-2006 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
07-16-2006 10:00 PM


Re: mr_matrix manages more mangled misinformation misrepresentations
I am interested in getting back to the discussion but must point out how ingrained your demeaning attitude is; I imagine that you do not even recognize it.

(I thought it was supposed to be bob and carol and ted and alice ...?)

Equating my name to a porn movie is insulting and demeaning. I bet you thought it was humorous? I am glad that you admit that:

Everyone is ignorant about something.

To be fair, it is not just you. A few people on both sides of this discussion do it without recognizing it. For others it is their only evidence. A Dale Carnegie course (How to win friends and influence people) seems in order. Even saying ROFLOL is demeaning - why say it? It does not contribute to the discussion. I figure that one who resorts to this really has little to say. They hope to simply win the argument by shouting the other parties down (I am sure that you know the historical significance of that). Stating facts in an unemotional way is debating at its best.

And speaking of facts, pointing out known facts (individual ignorance as you label it) is a good thing. For example, helicopters do fly for the same reason that A320's do. If one attached a left wing to both sides of an A320 (the one on the right facing to the rear) then rapidly rotated the plane clockwise it would (at least tend to) rise because the wings would act similarly as if they were moving forward (they are each moving forward with respect to the air). It is more useful, of course, to attach the wings to a rotating pole and have them spin and leave the body fairly steady.

I read the link provided. I think that the claim that it represents both sides (or the other side) of ID is misleading. In the main it is decieving because silly design does not preclude intelligent design. For example, I think it is silly (and all of the other words used including malicious) that it takes 9 hours to change the clutch on my Saturn (because the engine must be pulled) - but it is intelligent design. What you see as an argument against design I see as an argument against evolution; why would something evolve like a platapus did? I suspect that at this point you are at least tempted to tell me that I am wilfully ignorant. Please, if I missed a fact then point it out - but do not tell me that your interpertation of the fact is the only valid interpertation.

Again about the article, it is fairly devoid of discussable material. I have seen each one of those items discussed thoroughly without any change of mind. I think we do this, however, in hopes of swaying the opinion of those who are in the process of deciding. The repeated discussions have driven us to a private host if I read correctly. I would be pleased to support the forum financially by renting some space then organizing a site truly representative of facts for both sides of each issue. Then we could simply refer to the site and update it with new facts as they came along instead of repeating these long discussions.

Enjoy,
Bob, Alice, and Eve (BAE)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2006 10:00 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2006 7:48 AM BobAliceEve has responded

    
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1500 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 40 of 95 (332450)
07-17-2006 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by SR71
06-12-2006 11:47 AM


How did the gecko develop its outstanding ability to climb? Were the hairs on its toes useless up until the time they were just right? Why haven't a host of other lizards developed such a beneficial ability?

First of all, the gecko predecessor could have probably (and obviously) survived just fine without the ability to scale structures. There are many reptiles that do not need grasping hairs on their toes, but an ancestor of the current geckos you see developed the mutation (it needn't be in increments as creationists believe) that allowed them to climb "smooth" surfaces and that allowed their particular species to occupy previously unoccupied niches available to their ancestors and the mutation was selected for. There need not have been intermediate stages, but, if there were, the ancestors would have survived just fine in their previous niches until the hairs became "perfect." Other lizards didn't develop this "beneficial ability" because natural selection isn't"intelligent" and does not go "Hmmm this worked in this species so let me try it out in another." It happens because a certain individual has a mutation and breeds more individuals that have the mutation that ends up being something that benefits or simply changes one group from another (speciation).

How did the bombardier beetle slowly evolve such a dangerous mechanism without obliterating itself into extinction? If the chemicals were not just the right strength or right ingredients, or if the control valve did not close when the explosion took place, think of the consequences. If the mechanism didn't work until fully formed, think of the extra baggage it would have been.

I'm not terribly familiar with the bombardier beetle, but how do you know if the "valves" didn't evolve first, then allowing the toxic chemicals (which may have been present but not toxic to the beetle) to combine and form a defense mechanism? (Coleopterologists help me out here).

How did the hummingbird develop into such a high-metabolic bird? Why are there not many other birds similar to it? What fossils do we have that show its gradual development into what we know them as today?

Well, your website states (and I'm paraphrasing) that without the nightly hibernation period, the hummingbird would die. What is wrong with the idea that the ibernation developed first allowing the bird to conserve energy and thus become smller and have a higher metabolic rate? (Again...I am not a bird expert, so hopefully someone else has helped you out with some fossil evidence).

How did the giraffe slowly develop such a brain structure that would allow it to raise and lower its head without any problems? If they are the result of millions of years of evolution, wherein they grew longer and longer necks overtime in order to eat from the trees, why aren't there hundreds of other animals with such necks?

See above regarding mechanisms evolving before the changes that make them relevant and one more above regarding why more animals do not have the same adaptation..

How did male seahorses ever evolve from non-pouch to pouch? Why would they ever develop a pouch in the first place? How did the eggs survive before the male ever developed a pouch, and who convinced the male to watch over the eggs once the pouch was developed?

Similarly, how did Kangaroos develop a pouch? Why risk having a 1 oz creature crawl from the birth canal to a pouch to full develop months later. The eggs were most likely deposited somewhere (like many fish eggs are, most fish do not carry their eggs until term), but a male seahorse developed a pouch mutation and that was probably alot safer than leaving the eggs on a coral formation or some such, so those who had the pouch mutation had alot more offspring survive and, thus, the mutation survived creating the seahorse we see today.

If the platypus developed from some type of rat millions of years ago, how did its fleshy snout develop into a leather bill? How did the electric sensors evolve where none existed before? And why do they lay eggs? Why don't many other mammals lay eggs?

What do you think leather is? The snout of the platypus resembles the leather on your shoes alot less that the snout of a rat (magnified of course) or your pet dog. Slightly different, yes, but that same kind of rough fleshiness all the same. The sensors evolving where "none existed before" is not a problem for evolution. That's how things evolve. Maybe the sensors were developed before the modern version of the platypus and was a beneficial mutation, or maybe the sensors developed after, but they seem to be beneficial to the platypus, so they haven't been selected out, yet, but I am sure that the platypus could live without them. They are just an added bonus to the evolution of the creature. Besides, the platypus has biological, but distantly related, relatives (echidna) and shares a continent (Australia) not known for producing many placental mammals.

As for the laying of eggs, I think that that proposes more of a conundrum for the creationists than for the ToE because we have an explanation, but what was the "kind" that included the platypus? I'm sure it isn't the perfect creation and the beginning and the end for its kind, so what's your explanation?

Edited by Jaderis, : To insert "most" before fish. Thanks nwr!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SR71, posted 06-12-2006 11:47 AM SR71 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 07-17-2006 8:00 AM Jaderis has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 41 of 95 (332462)
07-17-2006 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by BobAliceEve
07-17-2006 4:43 AM


what evidence for design
Equating my name to a porn movie is insulting and demeaning.

Actually it was a comedy.
one review
another review
lighten up.

Even saying ROFLOL is demeaning - why say it? It does not contribute to the discussion.

Perhaps because the argument was so funny.

Actually, the way used it is attacking the argument and not the messenger: you make a ridiculous argument and it will be met with evidence that it is ridiculous. Repeat the ridiculous argument after it has been shown to be ridiculous and the argument becomes so ludicrous that it is a joke.

It is more useful, of course, to attach the wings to a rotating pole and have them spin and leave the body fairly steady.

And this relates to how a hummingbird flies how? The claim was that helicopters design was based on hummingbirds -- that is the issue you need to substantiate to support the fantasy argument that was presented.

I think that the claim that it represents both sides (or the other side) of ID is misleading. In the main it is decieving because silly design does not preclude intelligent design.

It is not meant to be present both sides of "ID" it is meant to present the OTHER side of the design controversy (the NOT-SO-intelligent side). The proponents of ID have claimed that presenting "both sides" is necessary while they misrepresent evolution and the evidence for design. They assume a false dichotomy that says "if not{A} then {B}" when there are many possibilities: one of which is Silly Design. I just say that both sides of the Design Controversy need to be presented to be fair and balanced.

In the main it is decieving because silly design does not preclude intelligent design. ... What you see as an argument against design I see as an argument against evolution; why would something evolve like a platapus did?

Why not? What prevents it from happening?

"Intelligent Design" does not preclude evolution from happening at any level.

You are free to "see" what you like. You are not free to pick and choose evidence and to deny other evidence and then think you have an argument. The robustness of a concept is not in what evidence supports it, but in the weakness of evidence that contradicts it.

I would be pleased to support the forum financially by renting some space then organizing a site truly representative of facts for both sides of each issue

Talk to admin (Percy) - but you may want to present some material first to see how it holds up.

There is no "both sides" -- that is a fabrication of people with a weak argument and a lack of evidence: if there were any real evidence for design there would be no argument. There is also a lot of evidence on the weakness of the design argument.

I suspect that at this point you are at least tempted to tell me that I am wilfully ignorant.

No, I'll let you demonstrate whether you are or not.

The repeated discussions have driven us to a private host if I read correctly.

Hardly. This site stands on it's own.

"Dr Dino" -- Kent Hovind -- is just one example of many sites that misrepresent facts, see: http://www.kent-hovind.com/

What is discussed on this site are concepts that people have presented for discussion, wherever they come from, whatever the original poster chooses to present.

Again about the article, it is fairly devoid of discussable material.

Agreed. It is a list of things the author does not know about -- what's to discuss?

We could discuss what the author doesn't know (speculate on ignorance) or we could discuss the information that is available and which shows that each instance is at most a difference in degree of an evolved trait and not a difference in kind of trait.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added last sentence


Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-17-2006 4:43 AM BobAliceEve has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by BobAliceEve, posted 07-19-2006 6:47 AM RAZD has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 42 of 95 (332466)
07-17-2006 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jaderis
07-17-2006 6:43 AM


The eggs were most likely deposited somewhere (like many fish eggs are, fish do not carry their eggs until term), ...

Actually, some fish do carry their eggs until term.


Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jaderis, posted 07-17-2006 6:43 AM Jaderis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Jaderis, posted 07-17-2006 6:23 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1500 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 43 of 95 (332652)
07-17-2006 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by nwr
07-17-2006 8:00 AM


Thanks, nwr, for pointing that out. I had a suspicion that there were some fish that did carry their eggs, and I intended to put "most" but I have been having some problems going back and correcting stuff before I post and probably forgot because I didn't want to deal with the hassle of moving everything around so the words following it didn't get eaten up (anyone else having a similar problem?). I'll try and fix it now.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nwr, posted 07-17-2006 8:00 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Belfry, posted 07-17-2006 6:29 PM Jaderis has responded

    
Belfry
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 177
From: Ocala, FL
Joined: 11-05-2005


Message 44 of 95 (332656)
07-17-2006 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jaderis
07-17-2006 6:23 PM


Jaderis writes:

I didn't want to deal with the hassle of moving everything around so the words following it didn't get eaten up (anyone else having a similar problem?).


It sounds like you're in overwrite mode. If you're on a PC, try hitting the "insert" key (usually a small key on the upper-right corner of the keyboard). That toggles your computer back and forth between overwrite and insert.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jaderis, posted 07-17-2006 6:23 PM Jaderis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Jaderis, posted 07-17-2006 6:40 PM Belfry has not yet responded

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 1500 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 45 of 95 (332660)
07-17-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Belfry
07-17-2006 6:29 PM


Thanks belfry, but it seems to be fixed now. My kitty probably hit INS while walking across the keyboard (she loves to do that LOL).
I'll remember for the future, tho.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Belfry, posted 07-17-2006 6:29 PM Belfry has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
4567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019