Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2015, 05:48 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 05:44 PM)Valaista Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 05:22 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Fuck, I hope you're not a Gish-Gallop "machine-gunner". Those people wear me out! But for now, I'll take you at your word.

1) There is no such thing as "devolution". Evolution has no up- or down-the-ladder evolution. There is a mathematical tendency toward complexity in replicating systems, but that's a different matter. First of all, you have to understand what a vestigal organ is. It basically means you still have the genetic programming to produce a part you no longer need (or use for something other than its original, primary purpose, like the wings on an ostrich), and that the randomness of natural selection has not fully removed it from the DNA. Even that would be rare; more typically the pressure is on the "size" part of the developmental genes, and the useless part gets smaller until it's barely there, like whale pelvis/legs (yes, they have them, internally). What often happens is that a piece of DNA code is "deactivated" by a mutation, after it is no longer in use by the creature, and the deactivation cannot hurt it by removing something necessary/functional. Sometimes, most of the code is still there, and that vestigal code is reactivated in some other function. By some evidence, this is the primary "tool kit" evolution operates on, and may explain why 95% of our DNA seems to be "junk" made up of gibberish sections and deactivated genes from our ancestors.

2) Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. That means after 50,000 years, it will have lost half its radioactive material 8.73 times, leaving 0.236% of the original C-14. Keep doing the math, and it drops below 0.001% ... but at no point will it ever reach zero. Provided you have accurate-enough devices to measure percentages that are ever-smaller, you can get ever-more-distant dates using C-14. However, there are numerous other isotopes which decay much more slowly, and are more useful for dating older items. Carbon is simply the most useful because it is involved with the life-cycle of a creature, so it can tell us when something died, and not just when it was formed as a fossil (or buried in the rocks around it, the more common method, as I understand it).

3) What is "vertical evolution"? (I know what it actually means, but it's clear that you do not mean "they got their DNA from parent generations instead of from gene-sharing among neighbor populations", so I assume here you mean "increased complexity".) What are you looking for, exactly, and why do you expect to see it in laboratory protists?

4) Respectfully, I don't think you're using these terms correctly, to the point that I'm not even able to translate what you're trying to ask me. What I *think* you're trying to say is that you consider changes in environmental adaptation to be "horizontal" changes, negative mutations or complexity/parts-loss to be "downward", and only increased capacity to be "upward"... the problem is that's not how evolution works, since it has no "direction" it is "trying" to go. Life tries whatever works, and goes in all directions, as it can. The idea of "higher" and "lower" evolution has not been how anyone has described the concept since Aristotle's Great Chain of Being, and we now teach it as a laughable concept, like, "Isn't it funny we once thought this?!" Aristotle is not disrespected by science; he is considered the first true, modern-type biologist because of the detailed dissections and drawings he did. But they also teach that a LOT of his ideas were just flat-wrong, yet persist today for some reason.

5) From what I recall of the T-Rex bone, nobody DID think it was possible until they dropped a femur and it broke, revealing "soft stuff". It was only then that they started looking for answers in the fossilization process. You can read about it, here:
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

I apologize if you intended some other question or meaning. I have answered the best I can, given my interpretations of what you wanted to know.

That did answer a lot of questions. However, there still exists the possibility of Theistic evolution due to irreducible complexity. Anyhow, the Human heart is something that I think might falsify Darwin's theory.

The heart, like the brain, generates a powerful electromagnetic field. The heart generates the largest electromagnetic field in the body. The electrical field as measured in an electrocardiogram (ECG) is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the brain waves recorded in an electroencephalogram (EEG). The results of The Electricity of Touch experiment were positive: The data showed “when people touch or are in proximity, transference of the electromagnetic energy produced by the heart occurs.

The heart’s electromagnetic field contains certain information or coding, which researchers are trying to understand, that is transmitted throughout and outside of the body. One of the most significant findings of this research related to this field is that intentionally generated positive emotions can change this information/coding.
That discovery raises the question whether the cardio electromagnetic field information transmitted from an individual who is angry, fearful, depressed or experiencing some other negative emotion, takes on beneficial properties when it is influenced by positive emotions. Also, is the care, compassion, love or other positive emotion not only transmitted throughout an individual’s body as the cardio electromagnetic field radiates through it, but transferred externally as well to people in close proximity or even, perhaps, over long distances?
Researchers were able to show that the mother’s brainwaves synchronized to that of her baby’s heartbeat. In this experiment, the baby was laying in the mother’s lap with a blanket placed in between mother and baby. In the summary of their findings, the study’s authors wrote, “This preliminary data elucidates the intriguing finding that the electromagnetic signals generated by the heart have the capacity to affect others around us. It appears that when the mother placed her attention on the baby that she became more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic signals generated by the infant’s heart. These findings have intriguing implications, suggesting that a mother in a psycho physiologically coherent state became more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic information encoded in the electromagnetic signals of her infant.”

Charles Darwin may be best known for popularizing the notion that nature is red in tooth and claw, however, he used the word love 95 times in The Descent of Man, while his most famous phrase, survival of the fittest, appears only twice.
Charles Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

How does Darwin’s theory account for a mechanism by which this observed energy exchange between individuals takes place?




Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 05:50 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2015 05:56 PM by Anjele.)
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 09:53 AM)Valaista Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 09:48 AM)Valaista Wrote:  You just said "Stupid ideas are eventually discarded--at least in the sciences. Ideas that only seem stupid ultimately survive (in the sciences)."? That's funny. Please explain how YOU differentiate a "stupid idea" from an idea that sounds stupid?
And you say your not a scientist qualified to evaluate Hawking's theories? Then How can you "evaluate" any theory for that matter and call it stupid. Including the idea of a creator?

P.S Useing direct quotations when the author you are quoting has coined a term unique to her or his research and relevant within your own is usually sufficient for an online thread. Lol this isn't a college classroom. Next you be asking for MLA format!!

Using

edit - your spelling is awful and your random capitalization of words makes what you write look ridiculous.

I can't even begin to list how many ways your posts are crap.

Typical tantrum to come later.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
26-10-2015, 06:01 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 05:44 PM)Valaista Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 05:22 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Fuck, I hope you're not a Gish-Gallop "machine-gunner". Those people wear me out! But for now, I'll take you at your word.

1) There is no such thing as "devolution". Evolution has no up- or down-the-ladder evolution. There is a mathematical tendency toward complexity in replicating systems, but that's a different matter. First of all, you have to understand what a vestigal organ is. It basically means you still have the genetic programming to produce a part you no longer need (or use for something other than its original, primary purpose, like the wings on an ostrich), and that the randomness of natural selection has not fully removed it from the DNA. Even that would be rare; more typically the pressure is on the "size" part of the developmental genes, and the useless part gets smaller until it's barely there, like whale pelvis/legs (yes, they have them, internally). What often happens is that a piece of DNA code is "deactivated" by a mutation, after it is no longer in use by the creature, and the deactivation cannot hurt it by removing something necessary/functional. Sometimes, most of the code is still there, and that vestigal code is reactivated in some other function. By some evidence, this is the primary "tool kit" evolution operates on, and may explain why 95% of our DNA seems to be "junk" made up of gibberish sections and deactivated genes from our ancestors.

2) Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. That means after 50,000 years, it will have lost half its radioactive material 8.73 times, leaving 0.236% of the original C-14. Keep doing the math, and it drops below 0.001% ... but at no point will it ever reach zero. Provided you have accurate-enough devices to measure percentages that are ever-smaller, you can get ever-more-distant dates using C-14. However, there are numerous other isotopes which decay much more slowly, and are more useful for dating older items. Carbon is simply the most useful because it is involved with the life-cycle of a creature, so it can tell us when something died, and not just when it was formed as a fossil (or buried in the rocks around it, the more common method, as I understand it).

3) What is "vertical evolution"? (I know what it actually means, but it's clear that you do not mean "they got their DNA from parent generations instead of from gene-sharing among neighbor populations", so I assume here you mean "increased complexity".) What are you looking for, exactly, and why do you expect to see it in laboratory protists?

4) Respectfully, I don't think you're using these terms correctly, to the point that I'm not even able to translate what you're trying to ask me. What I *think* you're trying to say is that you consider changes in environmental adaptation to be "horizontal" changes, negative mutations or complexity/parts-loss to be "downward", and only increased capacity to be "upward"... the problem is that's not how evolution works, since it has no "direction" it is "trying" to go. Life tries whatever works, and goes in all directions, as it can. The idea of "higher" and "lower" evolution has not been how anyone has described the concept since Aristotle's Great Chain of Being, and we now teach it as a laughable concept, like, "Isn't it funny we once thought this?!" Aristotle is not disrespected by science; he is considered the first true, modern-type biologist because of the detailed dissections and drawings he did. But they also teach that a LOT of his ideas were just flat-wrong, yet persist today for some reason.

5) From what I recall of the T-Rex bone, nobody DID think it was possible until they dropped a femur and it broke, revealing "soft stuff". It was only then that they started looking for answers in the fossilization process. You can read about it, here:
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

I apologize if you intended some other question or meaning. I have answered the best I can, given my interpretations of what you wanted to know.

That did answer a lot of questions. However, there still exists the possibility of Theistic evolution due to irreducible complexity. Anyhow, the Human heart is something that I think might falsify Darwin's theory.

The heart, like the brain, generates a powerful electromagnetic field. The heart generates the largest electromagnetic field in the body. The electrical field as measured in an electrocardiogram (ECG) is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the brain waves recorded in an electroencephalogram (EEG). The results of The Electricity of Touch experiment were positive: The data showed “when people touch or are in proximity, transference of the electromagnetic energy produced by the heart occurs.

The heart’s electromagnetic field contains certain information or coding, which researchers are trying to understand, that is transmitted throughout and outside of the body. One of the most significant findings of this research related to this field is that intentionally generated positive emotions can change this information/coding.
That discovery raises the question whether the cardio electromagnetic field information transmitted from an individual who is angry, fearful, depressed or experiencing some other negative emotion, takes on beneficial properties when it is influenced by positive emotions. Also, is the care, compassion, love or other positive emotion not only transmitted throughout an individual’s body as the cardio electromagnetic field radiates through it, but transferred externally as well to people in close proximity or even, perhaps, over long distances?
Researchers were able to show that the mother’s brainwaves synchronized to that of her baby’s heartbeat. In this experiment, the baby was laying in the mother’s lap with a blanket placed in between mother and baby. In the summary of their findings, the study’s authors wrote, “This preliminary data elucidates the intriguing finding that the electromagnetic signals generated by the heart have the capacity to affect others around us. It appears that when the mother placed her attention on the baby that she became more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic signals generated by the infant’s heart. These findings have intriguing implications, suggesting that a mother in a psycho physiologically coherent state became more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic information encoded in the electromagnetic signals of her infant.”

Charles Darwin may be best known for popularizing the notion that nature is red in tooth and claw, however, he used the word love 95 times in The Descent of Man, while his most famous phrase, survival of the fittest, appears only twice.
Charles Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

How does Darwin’s theory account for a mechanism by which this observed energy exchange between individuals takes place?

And no I'm not a Gish-Gallop lol. That's a debate tactic created by creationist Shill Duane Gish. I'm not a creationist. I don't believe the earth was created in 6 days, or that there is no evolution. I just believe that an intelligent force set things in motion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 06:02 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2015 06:07 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 05:44 PM)Valaista Wrote:  That did answer a lot of questions. However, there still exists the possibility of Theistic evolution due to irreducible complexity. Anyhow, the Human heart is something that I think might falsify Darwin's theory.

The heart, like the brain, generates a powerful electromagnetic field. The heart generates the largest electromagnetic field in the body. The electrical field as measured in an electrocardiogram (ECG) is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the brain waves recorded in an electroencephalogram (EEG). The results of The Electricity of Touch experiment were positive: The data showed “when people touch or are in proximity, transference of the electromagnetic energy produced by the heart occurs.

The heart’s electromagnetic field contains certain information or coding, which researchers are trying to understand, that is transmitted throughout and outside of the body. One of the most significant findings of this research related to this field is that intentionally generated positive emotions can change this information/coding.
That discovery raises the question whether the cardio electromagnetic field information transmitted from an individual who is angry, fearful, depressed or experiencing some other negative emotion, takes on beneficial properties when it is influenced by positive emotions. Also, is the care, compassion, love or other positive emotion not only transmitted throughout an individual’s body as the cardio electromagnetic field radiates through it, but transferred externally as well to people in close proximity or even, perhaps, over long distances?
Researchers were able to show that the mother’s brainwaves synchronized to that of her baby’s heartbeat. In this experiment, the baby was laying in the mother’s lap with a blanket placed in between mother and baby. In the summary of their findings, the study’s authors wrote, “This preliminary data elucidates the intriguing finding that the electromagnetic signals generated by the heart have the capacity to affect others around us. It appears that when the mother placed her attention on the baby that she became more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic signals generated by the infant’s heart. These findings have intriguing implications, suggesting that a mother in a psycho physiologically coherent state became more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic information encoded in the electromagnetic signals of her infant.”

Charles Darwin may be best known for popularizing the notion that nature is red in tooth and claw, however, he used the word love 95 times in The Descent of Man, while his most famous phrase, survival of the fittest, appears only twice.
Charles Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

How does Darwin’s theory account for a mechanism by which this observed energy exchange between individuals takes place?

You should know that "copypasta", as we call it, is HIGHLY frowned-upon, here.

The above was almost 100% verbatim, posted from these websites (and several identical copies of these essays on related websites)...

https://www.heartmath.org/articles-of-th...unfolding/

http://www.bevandgreg.com/2011/03/23/i-a...connected/

Misquoting the great Charles Darwin is also frowned upon, here, by Yours Truly.

Here is the full context of this section, from chapter 6 of On the Origin of Species :

Charles Darwin Wrote:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct. We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind.

When someone quotes only part of what Darwin says in an attempt to show that "the prophet of evolution was wrong", we say, "Yeah he was, about a lot of stuff. That's why we check." But it turns out he was not wrong about that one, and in fact his following guesses about homologies and development of other systems like the digestive tract were dead-accurate, which is amazing considering how little he had to go on, when he wrote that. But that's not even what he means... he's saying he can find NO CASE WHERE it is not explainable by gradual means.

My question is simple: if the people you're quoting (en masse!) show such a willingness to misrepresent science, even to the point of misquoting easily-checked sections from Origin, why should we listen to another word you say?

"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
26-10-2015, 06:06 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Hello! Big Grin

(26-10-2015 05:44 PM)Valaista Wrote:  That did answer a lot of questions. However, there still exists the possibility of Theistic evolution due to irreducible complexity. Anyhow, the Human heart is something that I think might falsify Darwin's theory.

The heart, like the brain, generates a powerful electromagnetic field. The heart generates the largest electromagnetic field in the body. The electrical field as measured in an electrocardiogram (ECG) is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the brain waves recorded in an electroencephalogram (EEG). The results of The Electricity of Touch experiment were positive: The data showed “when people touch or are in proximity, transference of the electromagnetic energy produced by the heart occurs.

The heart’s electromagnetic field contains certain information or coding, which researchers are trying to understand, that is transmitted throughout and outside of the body. One of the most significant findings of this research related to this field is that intentionally generated positive emotions can change this information/coding.

That discovery raises the question whether the cardio electromagnetic field information transmitted from an individual who is angry, fearful, depressed or experiencing some other negative emotion, takes on beneficial properties when it is influenced by positive emotions. Also, is the care, compassion, love or other positive emotion not only transmitted throughout an individual’s body as the cardio electromagnetic field radiates through it, but transferred externally as well to people in close proximity or even, perhaps, over long distances?

Researchers were able to show that the mother’s brainwaves synchronized to that of her baby’s heartbeat. In this experiment, the baby was laying in the mother’s lap with a blanket placed in between mother and baby. In the summary of their findings, the study’s authors wrote, “This preliminary data elucidates the intriguing finding that the electromagnetic signals generated by the heart have the capacity to affect others around us. It appears that when the mother placed her attention on the baby that she became more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic signals generated by the infant’s heart. These findings have intriguing implications, suggesting that a mother in a psycho physiologically coherent state became more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic information encoded in the electromagnetic signals of her infant.”

Charles Darwin may be best known for popularizing the notion that nature is red in tooth and claw, however, he used the word love 95 times in The Descent of Man, while his most famous phrase, survival of the fittest, appears only twice.
Charles Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

How does Darwin’s theory account for a mechanism by which this observed energy exchange between individuals takes place?

Blink

Um.. what now?

Okay.. does the article you've cut and paste that from actually give any figures? Like, just how much more electrical energy the heart generates compared to the brain? Or... is the article measuring the whole heart and the whole brain? Because.. I'm pretty sure there's more grey matter in our heads than muscle mass in our hearts (Comparatively)

So... when people touch. The power of heart electrocutes each other.... Consider

That.. does not sound right. Even remotely, closely right.

The heart's electromagnetic field produces coding... What? How? Where? It (The article) then goes on to say that this strange coding can thence be transmitted. Dafaq?

Then the article (Again, I'm assuming you're actually quoting from some where else. Since it certainly reads like it) throws in some bits from Darwin's book. Which is great and all... but science and the study of things has moved on in the hundred and fifty years since it was published.

In all.. a very strange post. I can understand people's "Woo" meters going off.

(26-10-2015 05:44 PM)Valaista Wrote:  How does Darwin’s theory account for a mechanism by which this observed energy exchange between individuals takes place?

What energy? How is this 'energy' measured? What evidence is there even of such 'energy' transferring between people? (Also, why doesn't it also transfer between people and other animals? Or between people and door knobs? Or people and fence posts?

If the heart is some how generating enough energy that it's actually 'washing' through out the entire body... Why isn't every one in a constant state of epileptic type fits as said 'energy field' interacts/interferes with the very impulses that operate the rest of our body? Our ability to walk? Our ability to move limbs? Heck.. how does this filed which the article says is washing through the body not interfere with our muscles which control our breathing?

I am hoping you're learning lots from the other people's great posts in relation to your questions. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 06:16 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 06:02 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 05:44 PM)Valaista Wrote:  That did answer a lot of questions. However, there still exists the possibility of Theistic evolution due to irreducible complexity. Anyhow, the Human heart is something that I think might falsify Darwin's theory.

The heart, like the brain, generates a powerful electromagnetic field. The heart generates the largest electromagnetic field in the body. The electrical field as measured in an electrocardiogram (ECG) is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the brain waves recorded in an electroencephalogram (EEG). The results of The Electricity of Touch experiment were positive: The data showed “when people touch or are in proximity, transference of the electromagnetic energy produced by the heart occurs.

The heart’s electromagnetic field contains certain information or coding, which researchers are trying to understand, that is transmitted throughout and outside of the body. One of the most significant findings of this research related to this field is that intentionally generated positive emotions can change this information/coding.
That discovery raises the question whether the cardio electromagnetic field information transmitted from an individual who is angry, fearful, depressed or experiencing some other negative emotion, takes on beneficial properties when it is influenced by positive emotions. Also, is the care, compassion, love or other positive emotion not only transmitted throughout an individual’s body as the cardio electromagnetic field radiates through it, but transferred externally as well to people in close proximity or even, perhaps, over long distances?
Researchers were able to show that the mother’s brainwaves synchronized to that of her baby’s heartbeat. In this experiment, the baby was laying in the mother’s lap with a blanket placed in between mother and baby. In the summary of their findings, the study’s authors wrote, “This preliminary data elucidates the intriguing finding that the electromagnetic signals generated by the heart have the capacity to affect others around us. It appears that when the mother placed her attention on the baby that she became more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic signals generated by the infant’s heart. These findings have intriguing implications, suggesting that a mother in a psycho physiologically coherent state became more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic information encoded in the electromagnetic signals of her infant.”

Charles Darwin may be best known for popularizing the notion that nature is red in tooth and claw, however, he used the word love 95 times in The Descent of Man, while his most famous phrase, survival of the fittest, appears only twice.
Charles Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

How does Darwin’s theory account for a mechanism by which this observed energy exchange between individuals takes place?

You should know that "copypasta", as we call it, is HIGHLY frowned-upon, here.

The above was almost 100% verbatim, posted from these websites (and several identical copies of these essays on related websites)...

https://www.heartmath.org/articles-of-th...unfolding/

http://www.bevandgreg.com/2011/03/23/i-a...connected/

Misquoting the great Charles Darwin is also frowned upon, here, by Yours Truly.

Here is the full context of this section, from chapter 6 of On the Origin of Species :

Charles Darwin Wrote:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct. We should be extremely cautious in concluding that an organ could not have been formed by transitional gradations of some kind.

Darwin knew of no such organ in his day, 150 years ago, but we know them quite well, now. When someone quotes only part of what he says in an attempt to show that "the prophet of evolution was wrong", we say, "Yeah he was, about a lot of stuff. That's why we check." But it turns out he was not wrong about that one, and in fact his following guesses about homologies and development of other systems like the digestive tract were dead-accurate, which is amazing considering how little he had to go on, when he wrote that.

My question is simple: if the people you're quoting (en masse!) show such a willingness to misrepresent science, even to the point of misquoting easily-checked sections from Origin, why should we listen to another word you say?

The answer to your question: If I find information on the web, then I cant find the answers to, why would I not ask people who might be accustomed to knowing those answers. Like I said, I'm not writing a book, or publication. But honestly, I am part of a debate team for our private school, and we are having debates coming up. I will be arguing the affirmative for intelligent design as well as other issues. So I wanted to know what the best arguments were and possible responses I would get from the other team. I want to find the best questions to ask and not to ask. And as I said im not a scientist, just a kid. But thanks for taking the time to answer them in the best detail you could.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 06:20 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
I also debated, though in college... if you really want to know how the other team is likely to dismantle your claims about Intelligent Design, and come up with ways to counter them, I suggest you read the entire transcript of the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. That is where the ID/IC movement got its primary expert handily taken to task, and I guarantee you that your opponents will be highly familiar with this case, and how it was won.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/ki...ision.html

"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
26-10-2015, 06:23 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Blanket statements (and assumptions) don't hold up well in real debates.

Your 'typical atheist tantrum' remark is a perfect example of what not to say.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 06:24 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 06:16 PM)Valaista Wrote:  The answer to your question: If I find information on the web, then I cant find the answers to, why would I not ask people who might be accustomed to knowing those answers. Like I said, I'm not writing a book, or publication. But honestly, I am part of a debate team for our private school, and we are having debates coming up. I will be arguing the affirmative for intelligent design as well as other issues. So I wanted to know what the best arguments were and possible responses I would get from the other team. I want to find the best questions to ask and not to ask. And as I said I'm not a scientist, just a kid. But thanks for taking the time to answer them in the best detail you could.

Hug

Best of luck and best wishes in your up coming challenge. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 06:26 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Actually, "I'm a kid doing research for an upcoming debate at my school, and I have some questions which you might find offensive but I mean them with honest intent" would have been the perfect lead-in.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: