Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#227 Apr 11, 2013
Pahu wrote:
Compatible Senders and Receivers
Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I).
False.

Light coming from a star contains information about the temp, composition and movement of that star.

There does not need to be an intelligence for there to be information.
Thinking

Bolton, UK

#228 Apr 11, 2013
Absolutely agree.

A wall could unexpectedly collapse tonight and generate yet more information.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
Light coming from a star contains information about the temp, composition and movement of that star.
There does not need to be an intelligence for there to be information.

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#229 Apr 18, 2013
Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 1

When the same complex capability is found in similar organisms, evolutionists say it evolved from a common ancestor. When the same complex capability is found in dissimilar organisms evolutionists say that convergent evolution explains it. With such flexible definitions, evolution can explain many things and not be falsified.

For example, wings and flight occur in some birds, insects, and mammals (bats). Pterosaurs, an extinct reptile, also had wings and could fly. These capabilities have not been found in any of their alleged common ancestors. Other examples of convergent evolution are the three tiny bones in the ears of mammals: the stapes, incus, and malleus. Their complex arrangement and precise fit give mammals the unique ability to hear a wide range of sounds. Evolutionists say that those bones evolved from bones in a reptile’s jaw. If so, the process must have occurred at least twice (a)—but left no known transitional fossils. How did the transitional organisms between reptiles and mammals hear during those millions of years (b)? Without the ability to hear, survival—and reptile-to-mammal evolution—would cease.

Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

a.“...the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).” Thomas H. Rich et al.,“Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,” Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.

“Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion.” Sid Perkins,“Groovy Bones,” Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

b. Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex “wiring” in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#230 Apr 18, 2013
Pahu wrote:
blah spam spam blah
From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown
Oh hey, Pahu. We have already established that your fellow Walt Brown is a non-scientist and liar for Jesus. Just pointing out again that so far you have been unable to address any previous rebuttals, without which all of your further spam collapses. When do you intend to rectify your mistakes?

Thanks again in advance.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#231 Apr 18, 2013
Pahu wrote:
Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 1
When the same complex capability is found in similar organisms, evolutionists say it evolved from a common ancestor. When the same complex capability is found in dissimilar organisms evolutionists say that convergent evolution explains it. With such flexible definitions, evolution can explain many things and not be falsified.
Let's take the capability of flight.

Actual flight has evolved in four different groups:
- Birds
- Insects
- Bats
- Pterasaurs

Are you suggesting that scientists are wrong to say that insects and birds are different groups and more related within the group than to members across groups?

You think that dragonflies and pelicans are more closely related to each other than either one is to members of their group?

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#232 Apr 18, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Walt Brown is still a non-scientist liar for Jesus who was debunked long ago.

Pahu, before you can present more religious apologetics you have to deal with the fact that your foundations have already been deconstructed, so until addressed, all that follows falls.

Especially when you invoke two different creationists with RADICALLY opposing views: one who thinks Goddidit with magic 6,000 years ago and definitely did not use evolution even though evolution is a requirement due to global flood, and one who thinks Goddidit with magic billions of years ago, using evolution, and that God is now dead.

So again I point out, since your "scientific alternative" is MAGIC why the hypocrisy on your part by contradicting yourself over and over and claiming science debunks evolution, despite the fact it quite clearly does not?

In short, why do you creationists always have to ignore the 9th Commandment when arguing your position?

Keep dodging.
There is magic on both sides. Creation miracles are a form of magic performed by the Creator.

The magic of evolution is performed without a magician.

Isn’t it absurd for evolutionists to ridicule creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while evolutionists maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything?

"God of the gaps" is a term used by atheists and scientists to disparage the belief that science cannot explain everything. Atheists argue that saying "God did it" as a response to every mystery is an ineffective argument. It should be noted that Gödel's incompleteness theorems has effectively established that science really can't explain everything; therefore, accusing believers of having a God of gaps is not in accordance with scientific principle.

One problem really bothered Darwin when he wrote On the Origin of Species. In fact, he devoted two chapters to it. If minor variations in species have really produced all the vast differences we see today, where’s the evidence in the fossil record? Today, evolutionists are still looking.

Since they were first recognized as remains of once-living creatures, fossils have captivated our imagination. In his book On the Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin devoted two chapters to one of his most vexing concerns—gaps in the fossil record. From Darwin’s day to the present, the completeness of the fossil record (or lack thereof) has remained a centerpiece in the debate over origins. What were Darwin’s concerns, and where do we stand 150 years later?

[continue]

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#233 Apr 18, 2013
[continued]

[b]A View from Origin[/b]

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?...This, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”—On the Origin of Species, p. 280

Darwin wrote,“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed,[must] be truly enormous,”1 yet this record was lacking among fossils. Particularly in later editions, Darwin went to great lengths to address criticisms of his theory, including criticisms about gaps in the fossil record. Darwin tried to explain the gaps in two ways:(1) the geologic record and fossil collections are imperfect, so it will be difficult to discover many transitional forms; and (2) despite so many known gaps at almost every stage of the evolutionary tree, new transitions are sure to be found (or, in rare cases as he argued, had already been found).

[b]Extreme Imperfection[/b]

Heavily influenced by geologist Charles Lyell, Darwin considered the geologic record to have been built up by gradual processes over millions of years (a view known as uniformitarianism). Nevertheless, Darwin believed that the sedimentary record had many gaps, where long periods of time left no rock record. He based his case for time gaps on various contemporary geological works, as well as his own field experience.

He noted, for example, that some sedimentary strata in England were far thinner than corresponding layers on the European continent, indicating to him that erosion had removed a lot of the rock record.

In the emerging field of paleontology (the study of fossils), Darwin rightly pointed out that the existing fossil collections were paltry compared to what must be a vast trove of fossils yet to be found. With so little of the world investigated, Darwin argued, how could we know what is really out there? Certainly, he thought, more fossils would fill the gaps.

[b]Missing Links[/b]

The existence of so many different kinds of sea animals in the lower fossil layers troubled Darwin. He lamented that the lack of fossils below this layer (now known as the Cambrian Explosion) was “inexplicable and may be truly urged as a valid argument” against his theory.

Yet Darwin could not defend his position solely by claiming a small and imperfect record. He needed to address why there seemed to be so little evidence for evolution among the fossils that had already been collected. Here Darwin found himself groping for answers. While Archaeopteryx and other tantalizing new finds had given Darwin some hope, no finely graded lineages, which connected one kind of creature to another, were available.

Worse still, from Darwin’s point of view, the lowest fossil-bearing rocks were filled with vast numbers of complex marine fossils that lacked any hint of their origin or transitional forms from one kind of creature to another. What is now called the “Cambrian Explosion” was wedged into Darwin’s thoughts on gaps. Such a sudden appearance of so many different groups of marine invertebrates, Darwin lamented, was “inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument” against his theory.

[continued]

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#234 Apr 18, 2013
[continue]

A Modern Assessment

One hundred and fifty years of collecting, recording, and interpreting fossils have provided a wealth of data to assess Darwin’s theory and his predictions about the fossil record. So how did he do?

First, despite all the increased knowledge of the rock record after so much drilling and exploration, many conventional geologists still see the rock record much as Darwin did: a record of long ages with lots of gaps. Many geologists now believe that Lyell’s strict uniformitarianism needs to be replaced by the important role of occasional catastrophes (local floods, tsunamis, etc.) that deposit new rock layers. Despite the occasional gap, though, the geological community generally believes that the geological record is complete enough to make detailed judgments about the pattern of rock layers worldwide.

For several reasons, young-earth creationists believe the rock record preserves a more complete sampling of life. Since most of the fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks were laid down during the year-long catastrophe of Noah’s Flood and during numerous post-Flood catastrophes, we expect a far more complete record, not just of the rocks but also of the fossil species that had once lived on earth.

Creationists, then, expect that a vast percentage of the gaps in the fossil record will never be filled, because the organisms to fill those gaps never existed. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that there are only a few recently excavated areas where paleontologists have found new and unusual fossil forms, such as in Asia and South America (but these sources will eventually dry up, too). In contrast, areas where fossils have been collected for a long time, such as in North America and Europe, are now producing far fewer new fossil species than might be expected if evolution were true.

And what of the gaps in the fossil record? First, not all gaps are created equal, so to speak. Gaps between plants and animals, for example, are much more significant than apparent gaps between mammoths and modern elephants (which appear to be varieties within the same created kind). The fossil record, especially the portion deposited by the Flood, is filled with all sorts of creatures, such as trilobites and dinosaurs, that suddenly appear and then disappear, without connection to fossils in lower or higher layers.

Darwin’s concerns about the Cambrian Explosion (the place low in the rock record where many different major animal groups, or phyla, are first found), for example, are as relevant as ever. In fact, many more major groups of animals have been discovered in the Cambrian than were known in Darwin’s time, with little evidence connecting these sea creatures to other forms in the layers below. These large gaps continue to pose strong challenges to evolutionary theory, but they make sense if a catastrophic Flood buried all the world’s sea creatures in a matter of weeks.

[continue]

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#235 Apr 18, 2013
[continued]

What about the supposed lineages in the upper layers of the fossil record within many mammal groups (e.g., horses, camels, and rhinos)? Many creation geologists believe that the world continued to experience major catastrophes in the centuries after the Flood, which would have buried many animals as they spread from the Ark. Fossils of these post-Flood creatures seem to show strong connections with living genera and species.

Some creationists argue that these fossils are ancestors of the living animals and descendants of the land animals that spread out from the Noah’s Ark. Their fossils can give us excellent insight into the range of variation within created kinds, which God preserved on the Ark, and they show us the way that the various kinds were able to diversify in the post-Flood world. Creationists would expect such similarities between species within a created kind.

Secular scientists have identified what they believe are a few candidates for transitions between different kinds of creatures, at least on the surface. Creationists need to honestly and fairly assess what these strange creatures really represent. For instance, Archaeopteryx, found shortly after the publication of Origin, continues to excite and mystify researchers. While it is clearly a flying creature (with fully developed flight feathers), other physical traits, such as a long tail and teeth, make it a fascinating mosaic form.

Likewise, groups of animals that purportedly link reptiles to mammals, or fish to amphibians, are fascinating cases to be studied. Rather than being transitions, they appear to be brushstrokes from God’s creative palette, examples of wonderful designs suited for their unique, pre-Flood environments.8 (For more details, see “Mystifying Mosaics” in the July-Sept. 2008 issue of this magazine.)

Based on a worldview that excluded biblical data and God’s activity in earth history, Darwin was at a loss to explain the absence of so many links in the evolutionary tree. Creationist predictions of widespread gaps between kinds, and elegant continuity within a kind, provide us with a robust view of the record we have, and excite our imagination as we discover more about “the world that then existed [which was] deluged with water and perished”(2 Peter 3:6, ESV).

Dr. Marcus Ross is the assistant professor of geology and assistant director for the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University. He holds a PhD in Geosciences from the University of Rhode Island.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v...

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#236 Apr 18, 2013
Poho,
If you can't formulate your own points then go away.

Cutting and pasting from a creationist website isn't debate.

When we disprove it, you simply say "Well, that's what they said" and don't claim ownership to the argument.

Either YOU have a position in this discussion or you don't.

Given your inability to vocalize even a simple thought, it's pretty clear you don't
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#237 Apr 18, 2013
Pahu wrote:
There is magic on both sides. Creation miracles are a form of magic performed by the Creator.
The magic of evolution is performed without a magician.
The difference being is that anything scientific is not actually "magic". The reason being it is scientifically demonstrable, unlike magic.
Pahu wrote:
Isn’t it absurd for evolutionists to ridicule creationists for believing God made everything out of nothing while evolutionists maintain that somehow nothing turned itself into everything?
Actually that is not what evolution claims at all. Of course if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about you would know this.
Pahu wrote:
"God of the gaps" is a term used by atheists and scientists to disparage the belief that science cannot explain everything. Atheists argue that saying "God did it" as a response to every mystery is an ineffective argument.
First of all, atheism is irrelevant to science. In fact many Christians also accept evolution. Second, science admits it can't explain everything. All WE do is point out that creationism explains NOTHING. It gives us a WHO, not a HOW. And does so based on zero evidence.
Pahu wrote:
It should be noted that Gödel's incompleteness theorems has effectively established that science really can't explain everything; therefore, accusing believers of having a God of gaps is not in accordance with scientific principle.
1 - Wrong. Those theorems are math. Math is not science.

2 - Creationists claiming God of the gaps is an appeal to ignorance. That's not our problem.

3 - Science doesn't care about your baseless religious opinions. However when you attempt to force them into the scientific arena, science is ruthless. Deservedly so.
Pahu wrote:
One problem really bothered Darwin when he wrote On the Origin of Species. In fact, he devoted two chapters to it. If minor variations in species have really produced all the vast differences we see today, where’s the evidence in the fossil record? Today, evolutionists are still looking.
Yet you fail to mention that as well as looking they are also FINDING, thus vindicating Darwin's predictions. I pointed this out on page 2. The fact you ignored this (and everything else) shows you are dishonest.

So I ask again, why continue to ignore the 9th Commandment when you know your claims can't ever be validated due to their reliance on magic, which you yourself have even admitted? This of course makes EVERY religious claim ever invented JUST as valid, rendering your religious myths no more valid than Islam, Hindi, or ancient Egyptian.

Science in the meantime continues to provide us with something useful.

Creationists in the meantime continue to lie for their god. Because their beliefs are that weak and ineffectual.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#238 Apr 18, 2013
And here's something else AIG said:

"The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

In short it's an open admission that they lie for Jesus.

Pahu, why do you lie for Jesus? Why do you continue to lie for Jesus? Why do you do so when your own religion has a Commandment from God Himself EXPLICITLY forbidding you from doing so?

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#239 Apr 19, 2013
Pahu wrote:
[continued]
What about the supposed lineages in the upper layers of the fossil record within many mammal groups (e.g., horses, camels, and rhinos)? Many creation geologists believe that the world continued to experience major catastrophes in the centuries after the Flood, which would have buried many animals as they spread from the Ark. Fossils of these post-Flood creatures seem to show strong connections with living genera and species.
Some creationists argue that these fossils are ancestors of the living animals and descendants of the land animals that spread out from the Noah’s Ark. Their fossils can give us excellent insight into the range of variation within created kinds, which God preserved on the Ark, and they show us the way that the various kinds were able to diversify in the post-Flood world. Creationists would expect such similarities between species within a created kind.
Secular scientists have identified what they believe are a few candidates for transitions between different kinds of creatures, at least on the surface. Creationists need to honestly and fairly assess what these strange creatures really represent. For instance, Archaeopteryx, found shortly after the publication of Origin, continues to excite and mystify researchers. While it is clearly a flying creature (with fully developed flight feathers), other physical traits, such as a long tail and teeth, make it a fascinating mosaic form.
Likewise, groups of animals that purportedly link reptiles to mammals, or fish to amphibians, are fascinating cases to be studied. Rather than being transitions, they appear to be brushstrokes from God’s creative palette, examples of wonderful designs suited for their unique, pre-Flood environments.8 (For more details, see “Mystifying Mosaics” in the July-Sept. 2008 issue of this magazine.)
Based on a worldview that excluded biblical data and God’s activity in earth history, Darwin was at a loss to explain the absence of so many links in the evolutionary tree. Creationist predictions of widespread gaps between kinds, and elegant continuity within a kind, provide us with a robust view of the record we have, and excite our imagination as we discover more about “the world that then existed [which was] deluged with water and perished”(2 Peter 3:6, ESV).
Dr. Marcus Ross is the assistant professor of geology and assistant director for the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University. He holds a PhD in Geosciences from the University of Rhode Island.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v...
I think you and MUQ should get together and argue your points on the science derived phenomenon called the Internet.

You can carry on your Christian Crusade against his Islamic Jihad and the only people who get hurt are the ones who read your posts. As in, "Ow! Your post just dropped my IQ by 10 points just from reading that" sense..

Meanwhile, science will continue to delve deeper into new questions as a result of answering old questions and leave you further and further behind.

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#240 Apr 25, 2013
Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2

It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

c.“By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units,...” Nilsson, p. 1143.

“But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells,“Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

d. Fix, pp. 189–191.

Denton, pp. 142–155.

“Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes.[emphasis in original] It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes.... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.”[Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.

e.“Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.”[emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 13.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#241 Apr 25, 2013
Pahu wrote:
Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2
It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.
c.“By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units,...” Nilsson, p. 1143.
“But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells,“Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.
d. Fix, pp. 189–191.
Denton, pp. 142–155.
“Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes.[emphasis in original] It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes.... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.”[Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.
e.“Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.”[emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 13.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
no such thing as god, give it up and go and do something useful with your lives.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#242 Apr 25, 2013
Pahu wrote:
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Pahu,
It serves neither your purpose nor ours for you to cut and paste already defeated arguments onto this forum.

If you have a position, then put forward an argument of your own.

Putting forward failed arguments which have already been refuted without making a personal statement is meaningless.

You won't defend the position.
We don't need to defeat it.

Even with an infinite amount of space available, it's still a waste.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#243 Apr 25, 2013
Noah must've had crabs and head lice
Pahu wrote:
Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2
It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.
c.“By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units,...” Nilsson, p. 1143.
“But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells,“Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.
d. Fix, pp. 189–191.
Denton, pp. 142–155.
“Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes.[emphasis in original] It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes.... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.”[Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.
e.“Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.”[emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 13.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Thinking

Sturminster Newton, UK

#244 Apr 25, 2013
How many species of termite refrained from eating this mythical ark?

About 4000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termite
swerty wrote:
Noah must've had crabs and head lice <quoted text>
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#245 Apr 25, 2013
Pahu wrote:
Denton
The fact that you mention this guy is evidence that creationists are dishonest because Denton's opinions have changed since his early days, yet creationists still quote his early opinions as if they are still relevant. And as we've already established that Walt Brown is a long-refuted non-scientist liar for Jesus your continued spamming of his apologetics is yet further evidence that your complete and utter total lack of honesty is not an issue for you whatsoever.

So I ask again, why continue to ignore the 9th Commandment when you know your claims can't ever be validated due to their reliance on magic, which you yourself have even admitted? This of course makes EVERY religious claim ever invented JUST as valid, rendering your religious myths no more valid than Islam, Hindi, or ancient Egyptian.

Science in the meantime continues to provide us with something useful.

Creationists in the meantime continue to lie for their god. Because their beliefs and their faith are that weak and ineffectual.

I thank you for demonstrating this to us repeatedly.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#246 Apr 25, 2013
Thinking wrote:
How many species of termite refrained from eating this mythical ark?
About 4000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termite
<quoted text>
Actually most fundies would claim that all species evolved from just one species of termite to save Noah space (and wood, presumably). You'll hear of similar stories if you mention any other animals with a wide variety of species. Of course this is particularly ironic, as this requires evolution at a rate which far outstrips actual evolution. Meaning every single animal species all died of irreversible cancers millenia ago, including the progeny of Noah and his crew. Therefore the flood is scientifically untenable. Or God used Godmagic to rescue the story and the flood is still scientifically untenable. Either way, the flood is scientifically untenable.

And that's only one of the many problems their global flood story has.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min Patrick n Angela 17,899
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 11 min Patrick n Angela 6,256
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 22 min Patrick n Angela 236,736
News Atheist monument to counter ten commandments (Jul '13) 42 min Patrick n Angela 15
News The Consequences of Atheism 2 hr thetruth 1,106
News 'Good without a god': Faces of atheism in Oklahoma (Jul '13) 3 hr thetruth 7,547
News Evolution is a philosophical humanistic religio... 5 hr geezerjock 1
More from around the web