ICANT'S position in the creation debate

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

It looks EXACTLY THE SAME.

---

Ahem. What do you think an "adaptation" is?

quote:

---

A human embryo looks NOTHING like the depiction.

---

Huh? Are you saying that the first stage in the drawing doesn't look like a fetus somewhere between 33 and 41 days? That the second drawing doesn't look like a fetus somewhere around 47 days? That the third one doesn't look like a fetus somewhere around 56 days?You really don't see it?

quote:

---

I could not find a photograph of anything that looked like your drawing

---

I provided you one. IN THE VERY MESSAGE TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED. Have you forgotten it already? It showed Haeckel's drawing compared to a photograph of an actual fetus, showing how the two compared. Fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and human.Have you forgotten it already?

quote:

---

with those protruding "gill slits" that don't exist.

---

I provided you one. IN THE VERY MESSAGE TO WHICH YOU RESPONDED. Have you forgotten it already? Human embryo pointing out the gill arches indicating which one will go to the maxillary, which one will go to the mandible, and which one will go to the hyoid.Have you forgotten it already?

quote:

---

with those protruding "gill slits" that don't exist.

---

So we're back to the claim you insist you aren't making: Biologists the world over have all made a catastrophic failure in basic anatomical identification and that these structures that can be dissected at every stage along embryological development and shown how they develop into certain structures in fish, other structures in terrestrial vertebrates, and still others in invertebrates don't actually exist.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

Can anyone notice the difference?

---

No. The first drawing looks like an embryo at either stage 15, 16, or 17. The second drawing looks like stage 19 or 20. The third drawing looks like stage 23.You really don't see it?

quote:

---

In the drawing, we get a worm with gills, but in reality, we can not see these arches, as being anything meaningful.

---

So we're back to the claim you insist you aren't making: Biologists the world over have all made a catastrophic failure in basic anatomical identification and that these structures that can be dissected at every stage along embryological development and shown how they develop into certain structures in fish, other structures in terrestrial vertebrates, and still others in invertebrates don't actually exist.Have you already forgotten about the photograph I gave you showing the human gill arches indicating which one becomes the maxillary, which one is the mandible, and which one is the hyoid?

quote:

---

Can we at any stage see any gills?

---

And since nobody has claimed "gills" for decades at the very least, one wonders why you're hyperventilating about it.Seriously, do you not understand the difference between "gills" and "gill slits"? Between "gills" and "gill arches"?A "gill slit" is not a gill. Neither is a "gill arch" a gill. In aquatic chordates, such structures will become gills and the supporting structures for them, but they are not gills.The male testes are made from the same structures as the female ovaries. Before the 53rd day, there is an undifferentiated mass of gonadal tissue that, under appropriate hormonal wash, will turn into one kind of organ in a male and a very different kind of organ in a female.This is different from the rest of the genitalia. Humans are hermaphroditic at first, having complete structures to form both Fallopian tubes/uterus as well as epididymis/vas deferens. The tissue by which the sperm is transferred from the testes to the urethra is not the same as the tissue by which the egg is transferred from the ovary to the uterus.And yet, the tissue from which the testes are created is the exact same tissue from which the ovaries are created.In all chordates, there are gill slits during embryogenesis. It is one of the three defining characteristics of all chordates (the other two being the notochord and a dorsal, hollow nerve cord.Just as the same tissue becomes two very different final structures in males and females, the gill slits/arches which are present in every single chordate become very different final structures in invertebrates, aquatic vertebrates, and terrestrial vertebrates.

quote:

---

Think; If you had never seen a human before, could you guess, from looking at these pictures, what a human was going to become?

---

Precisely. That's the evidence for evolution: Closely related embryos appear very similar during early development with differentiation only happening later on. This is not trivial similarity such as the fact that life starts as a single cell. Instead, this is large-scale similarity where a single structure that appears early in development such as gills slits and arches (which are present in all chordates as one of the three defining characteristics of chordates) differentiates as the various species develop.This is what evolution predicts: You start with a given structure and adapt it into a new structure. Living on land and breathing air, gills aren't very helpful. So instead of developing into gills, the gill slits and arches become throat structures such as the jaw and hyoid. It's why the same three bones in the reptilian jaw are the mammalian ear bones.

quote:

---

So then logically, how can such rudimentary "shapes" be called "gill slits" in the first place

---

What do these structures become in fish?

quote:

---

when you could not relate such primal blobs to anything significant untill they are substantially formed.

---

Huh? It seems were back to the claim you insist you aren't making: Biologists the world over have all made a catastrophic failure in basic anatomical identification and that these structures that can be dissected at every stage along embryological development and shown how they develop into certain structures in fish, other structures in terrestrial vertebrates, and still others in invertebrates don't actually exist.Why is it we call it "gonadal tissue" when it is clearly neither a testis nor an ovary?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

My claim is therefore that his drawings are in modern biological textbooks.

---

Which ones? And if you could, please provide the full context in which the drawings are presented, including the surrounding text.Or admit you don't have any evidence of this.

quote:

---

To prove this I have to show this is so, as you assumed me a liar.

---

Incorrect. This is what I said: Where is the accusation of lying? I simply asked you to put your money where your mouth is.And so far, you haven't been able to provide a single example of a modern biology textbook that uses Haeckel's drawings.

quote:

---

Here is a quote from a source; We have to assume both scientists are therefore also liars.

---

No, not liars. But the question hasn't been answered:What is the complete context by which these drawings are presented? That does make a difference. After all, Haeckel was trying to say that during embryogenesis, a human embryo is an actual fish at one point.That clearly isn't true. But if all we're pointing out is that embryogenesis of vertebrates follows a similar pattern that then differentiates as the process goes on, then while Haeckel's drawings aren't the best example out there, they aren't nearly as horrendous as you are pretending they are.Yes, it would be nice if actual photographs were used or at least more accurate drawings (since plain photographs can fuzz the subtle structures whereas drawings can emphasize significant areas to look at), but that requires money to get someone to get the embryos, mount them, and take pictures. Public domain pictures get used and since part of the lesson is that this recognition of embryological similarity was noticed nearly two centuries ago, it's not completely out of bounds to show the evidence from way back when.And in a perfect world, the context would then go on to point out how those drawings were manipulated, how the "biogenetic law" was hard to swallow from the very beginning and has been soundly discredited, but how the basic observations are still quite valuable and are part of the entire concept of comparative embryology and are extremely strong evidence of evolution.

quote:

---

My claim is true, Haeckel's fraudulent misleading drawings are in modern biology books

---

Which ones? And how do they use them? You still haven't been able to provide a single example.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

mike the wize responds to me:

quote:

---

100% of the "facts" show life coming from life, and that every single form is complex.

---

Huh? Did life only get started today? Are you seriously claiming that the biochemical landscape of today has been precisely consistent for all time?Question: Are you saying there has always been life somewhere in the universe or do you think that there was a time when there was no life followed by a time when there was life?If the former, then you are advocating panspermia. Are you?If the latter, then you necessarily proclaim that life comes from non-life.You just don't know how.Which is it, mike? Panspermia or biogenesis?[Note, that is not a typo.]

quote:

---

Therefore, are we obliged, through "no facts whatsoever", to believe in rudimentary biological forms.

---

Huh? The fossil record doesn't exist? We do not see a huge variation in life across the history of this planet? Do we not also a huge chemical shift over the geological history of the planet?So why should we expect the biochemical landscape of the world has been consistent for the entire time?Question: Are you saying there has always been life somewhere in the universe or do you think that there was a time when there was no life followed by a time when there was life?If the former, then you are advocating panspermia. Are you?If the latter, then you necessarily proclaim that life comes from non-life.You just don't know how.Which is it, mike? Panspermia or biogenesis?[Note, that is not a typo.]

quote:

---

That is my question.

---

If you think life has always existed, then you have your answer.If you think there was a time when life didn't exist followed by a time when life did, then you must conclude that there was some sort of biogenesis.We just don't know how.Which is it, mike? Panspermia or biogenesis?[Note, that is not a typo.]

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I thought you were asking the next question, how do gravity and velocity distort spacetime. Gravity and velocity have everything to do with it. In a discussion, repeating refuted claims from pages ago is not addressing the issue. We've pointed out that existence is observed to speed up and slow down. If you claim that existence does not, then you are wrong. How do you account for the observed facts? Well, since you have mass when you are not moving relative to your reference frame, as you approach the speed of light your mass will increase and nothing can push hard enough on you to compensate for that increase in mass. Ever seen E = mc²? Increased energy is increased mass. This is seen every day in particle accelerators.Why does this happen? AFAIK again we don't know, but it a fundamental and observed property of the universe. That is, if your theory is that it doesn't exist then your theory is wrong.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

He meant there is no one thing which is time, and there is no one thing which is space. There is one thing which is both. The clocks run faster or slower because gravity and velocity change the duration/existence. There is no other way to do it."Because it has gravity" is not an answer. What formula relates the two, and why? What aspect of reality is it that changes the transition frequency of cesium atoms? What changes for muons traveling close to the speed of light so that they exist so much longer? Your nutjob pal with the piling-up energy with no source and destination and with no effect on orbits is no help here.Relativity has an answer: the duration/existence exists independent of observers, and is changed. This is consistent with literally tens of thousands of widely varied observations. Your "theory" is not.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

ICANT responds to me:

quote:

---

My question was is there anything alive on earth today that was not produced by life? yes/no is all that is required.

---

And my response was that your question is non-sensical. At the very least, it is extremely naive for it assumes that things as they are now are how things have always been.But we know that isn't true. We know that large scale chemical changes have happened on this planet. And we know that this planet has not always existed. The former can be handled by evolution. After all, that's the entire point: As the environment changes, so does life. In fact, there is quite a large amount of evidence that the evolution of life on this planet dramatically changed the chemical makeup of the biosphere. There didn't used to be an oxygen atmosphere...but then the life on this planet started outpouring oxygen and the composition of the atmosphere changed. And with that change, life evolved to take advantage of it.As for the latter, we're back to the question of panspermia. Are you advocating panspermia? Life on this planet came from elsewhere?

quote:

---

God is infinite therefore life has always existed.

---

God is alive?Then that means god can die. Which means god cannot be infinite. Since we've just contradicted ourselves, that means god is not alive.

quote:

---

So if you mean from within the universe, then No.

---

Since god is part of the universe, if life came from god, then there is no contradiction and you are, indeed, advocating panspermia.

quote:

---

Biogenesis=The theory of biogenesis states that living things can only arise from living things and cannot be spontaneously generated.

---

Logical error: Equivocation.Biogenesis=The origin of life from "bio-" meaning "life" and "genesis" meaning "origin."You seem to be advocating that there has never been a time where there wasn't life. Thus, you are not adovcating the creation of life since it has always existed. Instead, you are advocating panspermia: Life came from elsewhere.

quote:

---

God gave life to man, as well as all plants and animals, Thus life begat life.

---

But as established previously, god isn't alive.But even if we do allow the disproven concept of god being alive, your argument fails unless you are saying that life was biologically spawned from god's body.Life as we currently see it propagates by reproduction: The cell splits in two.Are you saying life was made by some sort of parthenogenetic spawning of god? That god ejaculated, had it caught on a piece of wool, sewed it into his thigh, and then had Adam spring out of it?

quote:

---

According to the theory of biogenesis life can only be produced by life and not by spontaneous generation.

---

Logical error: Equivocation.Your use of "biogenesis" is not the same as mine.Logical error: Red herring.Spontenous generation has nothing to do with the abiogenesis.

quote:

---

A life form had to begat the first life form on earth.

---

Assumes facts not in evidence. In fact, assumes facts that are directly contradicted by evidence.There was a time when there wasn't life followed by a time when life did exist. Therefore, there had to be some process by which life was created from non-life.We just don't know how.

quote:

---

Scientific evidence that there is a life giving being.

---

Trivially proven true, but irrelevant to your conclusion.By your own definition, god is not alive.Therefore, life came from non-life.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

So, in short, you are either unwilling or unable to answer my question? You seem absolutely intent on changing the question every time I ask it.

Hi Mod, But I did answer your question.Just not accordingly to your expectations.According to relativity I am supposed to say the light is leaving us at the speed of light.The problem is, that it is not as pointed out by my one second stop/startTherefore the answer to your question is:The light is traveling at the speed of light which is 299,792,458 meters per second.We are traveling at 99.9% the speed of light which is 299,792,458 meters per second.Thus the light is pulling away from us by 299,792.458 meters per second.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

It is not about what you are supposed to say, it is about finding out what you think and then comparing that with observation to see how they match up.Your stop/start example is once again a separate case that involves extreme acceleration. I'm not talking about acceleration, so your bringing it up doesn't answer my question which deals with constant velocities. To clarify - are you suggesting that you agree that the light is leaving us at the speed of light even if we are travelling at very high speeds ourselves? That is after all, what we observe to happen when we are travelling at 30kms.If you do concede that we observe the light to be travelling away from us at the speed of light when we are travelling at high speeds, could you go back to Message 483 and answer some of the seeming paradoxes such a position invokes? When I originally asked them you attempted to 'derail' the conversation with inanity. They are key to me understanding your position - so if you want me to understand you I'd be much obliged if you could go back and actually tackle them.If, on the other hand, you are not conceding that we observe the light to be leaving us at he speed of light, then I'd be keen to hear how you explain the observations that run counter to your position.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hi Izanaqi, Change is a function in existence.Time is a concept of measurement man invented to desiginate the length of duration/existense of that function.Example: We plant a watermelon seed. A plant comes forth from the ground. A bloom appears and the bloom turns into a watermelon.Time is a measurement we use to desiginate the length of duration/existence between each of those stages. I agree existence changes. I disagree.Events happen in existence/duration time only tells us the duration from one event to the next. Only according to relativity. A second could be any measurement we decided to place upon it.Our concept of the length of a second has no effect whatsoever on the length of existence/duration. It is just a number we invented that satisfies our mind. Time doesn't exist because it simply does not exist.There is only now.Man invented the concept of time. Then devised ways of counting time. So he could measure the length between events in existence/duration.Nothing has a concept of time except man. Of what?Length, width, and height are unit's of measurment man has invented to desiginate the size of an object, or the distance between two or more objects.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Mod, I will concede the light is traveling at the speed of light.But the light is only traveling away from us by 299,792.458 meters per second. ICANT'S position on the question at hand. "what do we observe the speed of the light to be in the example?"The speed of light = 299,792,458 meters per second.99.9% the speed of light = 299,792,458 meters per second..1% the speed of light = 299,792.458 meters per second.So we observe the light pulling away from us at .1% the speed of light.From message 483. Using your numbers. You can not observe the signal moving away from you at 300,000 kms. Because you are traveling in the opposite direction at 150,000 kms for a total of 450,000 kms. Unless you stop.The speed of light is 300,000 kms so from the point the message was sent it is traveling 300,000 kms and that is the reason it covers one light year in one light year.Because you were traveling 150,000 kms in the opposite direction has no effect on the speed of light. First thing. If you are standing still outside the train you won't even see the train go by, must less the clocks inside.If you are keeping your face glued to the window of the train car in which the event takes place you will observe the same thing as the person inside. What is there to square? The speed of light exists. It exists in existence/duration. It can get from point A to point B in existence. The length of that existence/duration is determined by the distance between point A and point B. It is then designated that it took x amount of time according to man's concept of the measurement of time.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

No, the intervals or increments of time is manmade for our benefit, but time itself is a physical property of the universe. Time and space are conjoined as twins and are homologous with one another.In other words, you can't have space without time or time without space. That's why physicists refer to it as "spacetime."

---

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

Hi Rrhain, The question was simple.The answer just as simple. NOThe following question would have been, "has there ever been life on earth that was not produced by life?" The correct answer would be, as far as we know, NO. With all the experiments that have been conducted there has not been one speck of life produced nor has there ever been an observation of life begining to exist from non life.Now with all the evidence against life begining to exist from non life, you can by faith believe it did if you so desire too. Because you have no scientific evidence that says it can. The physical part that dies is nothing but a body that the mind and spirit reside in.And yes the physical part can die just as the physical part of man can die. But as the Spirit, and mind of God can not die neither can the spirit and mind of man die.The physical part of God did die on the cross to make it possible for man to be reunited with God. The Mind and Spirit was given a new eternal body to reside in, in the resurrection and will never die. Just as mankind who was made in God's image will receive an eternal body in the resurrection for his mind and spirit to reside in. It will then spend eternity with God or eternity in the lake of fire.That will be determined as to whether man accepts the free full pardon offered by God.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Hyro, Why can't you have space without time?All you have to have for space to exist is existence.Now if events take place in that existence in space humans need some way of measuring the existence between events. Thus mankind invented the concept of time then came up with numbers to desiginate such interval's. A lot of people here keep repeating that.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."