An elitest YEC paper found! Is it real or fantasy?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2016, 10:49 PM
RE: An elitest YEC paper found! Is it real or fantasy?
(21-12-2016 02:32 PM)theBorg Wrote:  The billion of years. The laws of nature are invariant under time compression. Therefore, the "macro-evolution" has the same properties as the "micro-evolution". No bear has ever become a crocodile, thus no bear ever will become a crocodile. Capisce? Laugh out load

How about you explain to us in detail what "time compression" is.
Then give us the names of 5 scientific works that discuss "time compression" .
We are learners. Facepalm

The only thing you have ever said that is right is : "no bear will ever become a crocodile". Bears and crocodiles have no common ancestor, so when you say that it shows the entire world how stupid and uneducated you really are. You really should stop making a fool of yourself and your religion.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-12-2016, 11:16 PM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2016 11:22 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: An elitest YEC paper found! Is it real or fantasy?
(21-12-2016 10:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bears and crocodiles have no common ancestor

Yes, they do. I already pointed out what it was, and when they were on the earth. It's before the dinosaurs, of course, well over 300 million years ago. (It's also interesting to note that crocodiles have been around since before the dinosaurs, and of course anything even remotely resembling a bear could not have evolved until after the dinos were wiped out and the then-shrew-like mammals took over.)

But my point is that they do share a common ancestor. Just not a recent one.

If you go back far enough, we share common ancestry with every multicellular creature on earth, and we see genes that have been retained (with minor variations) throughout that time.

In the sense that Borg means it, that there was some animal destined to turn from a bearlike creature into a crocodile-like creature (or vice versa), of course, that's totally unfounded and untrue.

Edit to Add: See, Borg? We work very hard to correct any untrue thing said here. But I know Bucky didn't lie on purpose, but only made a mistake. He's an expert on physics while I'm an expert on biology. If I said something incorrect about physics (and I am sure I will some time in the near future), I would expect him to point out my error. I would then say "thank you" to him for doing so, and I would never make that mistake again. That's the difference between an honest learner and an intellectually dishonest person.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
21-12-2016, 11:25 PM
RE: An elitest YEC paper found! Is it real or fantasy?
(21-12-2016 06:55 PM)theBorg Wrote:  Friends, I am not a damn False Christian, which you used to deal with. I am the respectful True Christian.

Are you indeed?

My opinion of the character on the screen named theBorg, is that the character is insane.

Of course this is just the character.

Why choose theBorg in the first place.

Hmmm, let's see.

The Borg was a collective figure in Star trek, unable to operate as individuals. All were the same.

Remind you of anyone or belief system???? Dodgy

Happily once the Borg were discovered to have developed from humanity, Captain Picard put a stop to all that nonsense.

Yeah, I don't take this seriously at all.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
21-12-2016, 11:26 PM
RE: An elitest YEC paper found! Is it real or fantasy?
(21-12-2016 11:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  But my point is that they do share a common ancestor. Just not a recent one.

No crocodile has a mammal ancestor.
He doesn't even know what that means.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
21-12-2016, 11:37 PM
RE: An elitest YEC paper found! Is it real or fantasy?
(21-12-2016 11:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 11:16 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  But my point is that they do share a common ancestor. Just not a recent one.

No crocodile has a mammal ancestor.
He doesn't even know what that means.

On that point, we are certainly agreed. And crocodiles are not ancestors of the mammals, either. The common ancestor of the crocodilians and the mammals split into the various groups of reptiles, one group of which would later become the dinosaurs (while the crocs went right on truckin', being so well-fitted to their environmental niche-- "eat whatever land critter comes down to the water to drink"), and another group which would become the ancestors of mammals. The group that became the dinos was also after the crocs went their own way. It's just a matter of when the branches split off from the ancestral population.

And none of that has anything to do with their "crocoduck" (or in this case, "bearocodile") ridiculousness, where they expect to see current creatures magically transmute from one type to another. Rolleyes

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2016, 11:49 PM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2016 11:52 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: An elitest YEC paper found! Is it real or fantasy?
Holy shit... while looking for a picture to show the huge crocodiles that ate dinosaurs, I stumbled across something even cooler.

There really was a crocoduck! (They call it the "DuckCroc", and it has no relation to the creationist BS, of course.)

It was 100 million years ago (so during the time of the dinos), and part of three new species discovered last year in north Africa... they appear to have had longer, more upright legs that let them "gallop".

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Anatosuchus, the DuckCroc. (That's literally what the Latin words mean.)

[Image: Ancient-crocodiles_08.jpg]

[Image: Ancient-crocodiles_09.jpg]



https://archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot....ZSIPmZZ.97

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
22-12-2016, 12:39 AM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2016 12:42 AM by theBorg.)
RE: An elitest YEC paper found! Is it real or fantasy?
(21-12-2016 07:44 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...............
Then we showed you, unequivocally, that the paper does not contain useful science
..............

Friends, the Meyer and his hero-editor have introduced the CORRECT interpretation of the facts into the Current Content level - the only possible public scientific level.

Just like Quantum Mechanics the Nature has several published interpretations. Darwinists absurdic interpretation: "mindless mud has decided to go alive", Laugh out load Creationists interpretation of life: "Jesus Christ has created us from the Nature." Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2016, 12:58 AM
RE: An elitest YEC paper found! Is it real or fantasy?
(21-12-2016 06:51 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 04:25 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Y'all do understand that you are taking considerable time and making quite an effort to educate someone who has his fingers stuck in his ears up to the second knuckle and repeating...la, la, la, la, la...as loud as he can.

The thing is not that he can't hear you but rather he won't hear you.

Truth is, I'm desperately trying to understand the type of human brain that can be so dishonest with itself. It's easy to write it off as "just fundamentalism" or "just stupid" (or trolling, of course), but I was raised as a hard-core, "on fire for Jesus", fundamentalist Christian and yet I, when presented with the Creationist information, was immediately able to spot the problems... and when I looked into it (as so many of them claim to have done), I did so with all the honesty and integrity I had been taught to hold dear by my fundamentalist Christian family.

I found out that it didn't hold water. I had to honestly admit that to myself.

What I can't understand is how so many people can get it so wrong, be shown that they're wrong with clear evidence, and yet managed to have it just deflect off their skulls like this.

I think he's just a persnickety, nattering fusspot with blinders on.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2016, 01:17 AM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2016 01:20 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: An elitest YEC paper found! Is it real or fantasy?
(22-12-2016 12:39 AM)theBorg Wrote:  
(21-12-2016 07:44 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...............
Then we showed you, unequivocally, that the paper does not contain useful science
..............

Friends, the Meyer and his hero-editor have introduced the CORRECT interpretation of the facts into the Current Content level - the only possible public scientific level.

No, Meyer wrote a paper that

1) blatantly ignored the existing scientific literature that had experimentally proved the things he said in the paper could not happen,

2) contained no new research or experimentation, but was what's called a "literary review" of other things that had been written before (as in citations to other papers-- none of which included the papers that proved he was wrong, of course),

3) did not follow the Scientific Method of demonstrating things that could properly be tested by others to verify or falsify the claims,

4) was published in the wrong kind of journal, as the paper was not about systematics , and

5) was printed without review by anyone but the friend of the author of the paper, on his sole authority, in a situation where standard professional ethics would have caused anyone else to recuse themselves and let others without potential bias make that decision.

It is dishonest at every level. Have you read nothing I've shown you thus far?

I like how The Panda's Thumb blog put it, in the article you dishonestly refuse to read:

“Intelligent design” (ID) advocate Stephen C. Meyer has produced a “review article” that folds the various lines of “intelligent design” antievolutionary argumentation into one lump. The article is published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. We congratulate ID on finally getting an article in a peer-reviewed biology journal, a mere fifteen years after the publication of the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People, a textbook aimed at inserting ID into public schools. It is gratifying to see the ID movement finally attempt to make their case to the only scientifically relevant group, professional biologists. This is therefore the beginning (not the end) of the review process for ID. Perhaps one day the scientific community will be convinced that ID is worthwhile. Only through this route – convincing the scientific community, a route already taken by plate tectonics, endosymbiosis, and other revolutionary scientific ideas – can ID earn a legitimate place in textbooks.

Unfortunately, the ID movement will likely ignore the above considerations about how scientific review actually works, and instead trumpet the paper from coast to coast as proving the scientific legitimacy of ID. Therefore, we would like to do our part in the review process by providing a preliminary evaluation of the claims made in Meyer’s paper. Given the scientific stakes, we may assume that Meyer, Program Director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, the major organization promoting ID, has put forward the best case that ID has to offer. Discouragingly, it appears that ID’s best case is not very good. We cannot review every problem with Meyer’s article in this initial post, but we would like to highlight some of the most serious mistakes. These include errors in facts and reasoning. Even more seriously, Meyer’s paper omits discussion or even citation of vast amounts of directly relevant work available in the scientific literature.


(Bold emphases my own.)

(22-12-2016 12:39 AM)theBorg Wrote:  Just like Quantum Mechanics the Nature has several published interpretations. Darwinists absurdic interpretation: "mindless mud has decided to go alive", Laugh out load Creationists interpretation of life: "Jesus Christ has created us from the Nature." Yes

Yes, nature has several interpretations, even among biologists. We argue about many parts that are not yet settled, especially among the field of abiogenesis chemistry, to which you seem to be referring. There are many ideas which look like good candidates and which have produced excellent, peer-reviewed, falsifiable papers on the subject. [Edit to Add: and certainly nobody on any professional scientific level, with the exception of people who swore to uphold the Bible at all costs, seriously contends that evolution is not real, at this point.]

But none of them include the phrase "mindless mud has decided to go alive". Go to NIH's PubMed and see for yourself. That's not what science thinks, what it claims, or an honest way to phrase it.

So please stop lying about what science claims. Stop it.

No, on second thought, please keep going. I appreciate the work you are doing in showing everyone who is guest-reading this forum just how dishonest and delusional Creationists are.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
22-12-2016, 05:57 AM
RE: An elitest YEC paper found! Is it real or fantasy?
(22-12-2016 01:17 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(22-12-2016 12:39 AM)theBorg Wrote:  Friends, the Meyer and his hero-editor have introduced the CORRECT interpretation of the facts into the Current Content level - the only possible public scientific level.

No, Meyer wrote a paper that

1) blatantly ignored the existing scientific literature that had experimentally proved the things he said in the paper could not happen,

2) contained no new research or experimentation, but was what's called a "literary review" of other things that had been written before (as in citations to other papers-- none of which included the papers that proved he was wrong, of course),

3) did not follow the Scientific Method of demonstrating things that could properly be tested by others to verify or falsify the claims,

4) was published in the wrong kind of journal, as the paper was not about systematics , and

5) was printed without review by anyone but the friend of the author of the paper, on his sole authority, in a situation where standard professional ethics would have caused anyone else to recuse themselves and let others without potential bias make that decision.

It is dishonest at every level. Have you read nothing I've shown you thus far?

I like how The Panda's Thumb blog put it, in the article you dishonestly refuse to read:

“Intelligent design” (ID) advocate Stephen C. Meyer has produced a “review article” that folds the various lines of “intelligent design” antievolutionary argumentation into one lump. The article is published in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. We congratulate ID on finally getting an article in a peer-reviewed biology journal, a mere fifteen years after the publication of the 1989 ID textbook Of Pandas and People, a textbook aimed at inserting ID into public schools. It is gratifying to see the ID movement finally attempt to make their case to the only scientifically relevant group, professional biologists. This is therefore the beginning (not the end) of the review process for ID. Perhaps one day the scientific community will be convinced that ID is worthwhile. Only through this route – convincing the scientific community, a route already taken by plate tectonics, endosymbiosis, and other revolutionary scientific ideas – can ID earn a legitimate place in textbooks.

Unfortunately, the ID movement will likely ignore the above considerations about how scientific review actually works, and instead trumpet the paper from coast to coast as proving the scientific legitimacy of ID. Therefore, we would like to do our part in the review process by providing a preliminary evaluation of the claims made in Meyer’s paper. Given the scientific stakes, we may assume that Meyer, Program Director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, the major organization promoting ID, has put forward the best case that ID has to offer. Discouragingly, it appears that ID’s best case is not very good. We cannot review every problem with Meyer’s article in this initial post, but we would like to highlight some of the most serious mistakes. These include errors in facts and reasoning. Even more seriously, Meyer’s paper omits discussion or even citation of vast amounts of directly relevant work available in the scientific literature.


(Bold emphases my own.)

(22-12-2016 12:39 AM)theBorg Wrote:  Just like Quantum Mechanics the Nature has several published interpretations. Darwinists absurdic interpretation: "mindless mud has decided to go alive", Laugh out load Creationists interpretation of life: "Jesus Christ has created us from the Nature." Yes

Yes, nature has several interpretations, even among biologists. We argue about many parts that are not yet settled, especially among the field of abiogenesis chemistry, to which you seem to be referring. There are many ideas which look like good candidates and which have produced excellent, peer-reviewed, falsifiable papers on the subject. [Edit to Add: and certainly nobody on any professional scientific level, with the exception of people who swore to uphold the Bible at all costs, seriously contends that evolution is not real, at this point.]

But none of them include the phrase "mindless mud has decided to go alive". Go to NIH's PubMed and see for yourself. That's not what science thinks, what it claims, or an honest way to phrase it.

So please stop lying about what science claims. Stop it.

No, on second thought, please keep going. I appreciate the work you are doing in showing everyone who is guest-reading this forum just how dishonest and delusional Creationists are.

"mindless mud has decided to go alive"-

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Yeah, that is absurd, and it's what creationists believe. Rolleyes

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: