The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#21 Sep 10, 2012
Pahu wrote:
Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.
There are no boundaries. You were born with over 100 mutations NOT shared by your parents. Your kids will be the same. As will theirs. Unfortunately for you even centimeters CAN add up to a mile.
Pahu wrote:
Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout almost all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few.
Bacteria prove you wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteria
Pahu wrote:
New features apparently don’t evolve.
a.“... the discovery of the Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen that the more or less constant somatic variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis in species change cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of ‘indefinite departure.’” Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), p. 227.
Actually new features apparently DO evolve. One example is the development of cecal valves in Podarcus sicula of Pod Mrcaru. Also the development of new genes have been observed on the genetic level:

http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/TCTDUMIJ55H2B...
Pahu wrote:
“The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available...” Peter R. Sheldon,“Complexity Still Running,” Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104.
c. Bland J. Finlay,“Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial Eukaryote Species,” Science, Vol. 296, 10 May 2002, pp. 1061–1063.
Vague quotes not actually addressing anything in particular, I can only assume therefore you're looking for further hyperbole to bolster your vacuous position.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#22 Sep 10, 2012
Pahu wrote:
Like so many terms in science, the popular meaning of “natural selection” differs from what the words actually mean.“Selecting” implies something that nature cannot do: thought, decision making, and choice.
Ignorance of a concept is not a valid argument against it. Holes in the ground for example are capable of selection. They collect water until they are full. When full the rest of the water goes elsewhere. Selection. Natural. No intelligence required.
Pahu wrote:
Instead, the complex genetics of each species allows variations within a species. In changing environments, those variations give some members of a species a slightly better chance to reproduce than other members, so their offspring have a better chance of surviving. The marvel is not about some capability that nature does not have, but about the designer who designed for adaptability and survivability in changing environments.
If you posit a "designer" then please present the evidence of its existence, the mechanisms it uses to do whatever it is you think it does and testable scientific predictions based on your hypothesis.
Pahu wrote:
With that understanding, the unfortunate term “natural selection” will be used.
An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” Only in this sense, does nature “select” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing.
Except those that survive are able to reproduce. Reproduction provides genetic variation. Hence as long as they successfully reproduce, the gene pool constantly increases. As evidence I provide you with the entire human race.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#23 Sep 10, 2012
Pahu wrote:
In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight.[See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]

Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.
Edward Blyth also showed why natural selection would limit an organism’s characteristics to only slight deviations from those of all its ancestors. Twenty-four years later, Darwin tried to refute Blyth’s explanation in a chapter in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24 November 1859).
Pahu wrote:
“Darwin was confronted by a genuinely unusual problem. The mechanism, natural selection, by which he hoped to prove the reality of evolution, had been written about most intelligently by a nonevolutionist [Edward Blyth]. Geology, the time world which it was necessary to attach to natural selection in order to produce [hopefully] the mechanism of organic change, had been beautifully written upon by a man [Charles Lyell] who had publicly repudiated the evolutionary position.” Eiseley, p. 76.
Charles Darwin also plagiarized in other instances.[See Jerry Bergman,“Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory?” Technical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 58–63.]
Addressed here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth#On_...

Also ad-homs against Darwin does not falsify the current evolutionary synthesis.
Pahu wrote:
Darwin felt that, with enough time, gradual changes could accumulate. Charles Lyell’s writings (1830) had persuaded Darwin that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old. James Hutton’s writings (1788) had convinced Lyell that the earth was extremely old. Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood.
Global flood does not explain anything. In fact anything purported for a global flood is mere apologetics to attempt to justify a Young Earth position of the Bible. So why then has that not stopped you from referencing Old Earth Creationists? Answer - hypocrisy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#24 Sep 10, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Revisionist Creationist bullsh*t. Its sad that you can't accept the fact of Evolution and need to lie about science to promote your ignorant and dishonest faith.
Skippy, why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?

Still waiting.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#25 Sep 10, 2012
So far nothing Pahu has presented has actually really addressed very much about the modern synthesis of evolution. So in the meantime here is some more science which does in fact demonstrate evolution:

All humans are born with 125 to 175 mutations. Hominid fossils display clear evolutionary progression over the past 7 million years. Our closest modern cousins are chimps who share 98% of our DNA. Taking a look at fossil hominids over the past 7m years we observe that they start off with stooped posture, jutting out facial features and smaller craniums. As we observe the fossil record going further up the geological strata (forwards in time) we see a gradual reduction in facial features, more upright posture and an increase in cranial capacity. Meaning the characteristics become increasingly more similar to humans, just as evolution predicts.

As Darwin himself said at the time (which fundies love to point out) the fossil record at the time did not support the idea of hominid evolution and common ancestry. But since then the fossil record has vindicated his predictions:

Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Paranthropus aethiopicus
Paranthropus boisei
Paranthropus robustus
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens

(list originally provided by Gillette on this thread here)

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Here we have some more data on the cranial capacity of fossil hominids confirming all the above:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/f...

And some more information on fossil hominids over the past few million years:

http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm

Calculations based on DNA mutation rates indicates common ancestry between humans and chimps approximately 6 million years ago. This again is consistent with the evolutionary progression in the fossil record, as demonstrated above. However even without the fossil record, using our DNA alone would still make common ancestry the only plausible scientific explanation for observed biological phenomena.

So that's well over twenty lines of evidence - the fossil record, comparative anatomy, DNA, nested hierarchies consistent across ALL these, along with mutation rates, all combining to form a consistent predictable and scientifically testable case for evolution. And I haven't even mentioned ERV's yet.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#26 Sep 10, 2012
I wonder now if it is superfluous mentioning Pahu's hypocrisy in his views of science. Not only did he attempt to garner support for his position by referencing people who disagree with him, but also sources that conflicted with each other, and some which were from new-age cranks and pseudo-scientists. But ultimately his "scientific alternative" is GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC. Meaning that even if we, for the sake of argument, say that evolution was falsified thousands of years ago by objectively verifiable scientific means - we can also invoke magic and our claim would then be AT LEAST as valid as his and neither could claim scientific validity. So the best he could ever hope for is a stalemate.

He cannot win and may as well go home.(shrug)

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#27 Sep 11, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Skippy, why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?
Still waiting.
1. You have no evidence that "god is possible". YOu haven't provided any evidence of your claim

2. You still and I repeat still (almost half a year) have not provided any example of an item that is both real and unfalsifiable. You tried, to your credit, but failed.

3. When Nuggin got slaughtered for his ridiculous logic, you ducked out to avoid a beating, and now still cower behind him like a wuss.

4. You still haven't looked up the burden of proof, which lies upon the idiot who invents bullsh*t ie. you, to provide it.

So provide it or f*ck off you waste of forum space.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#28 Sep 11, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
1. You have no evidence that "god is possible". YOu haven't provided any evidence of your claim
2. You still and I repeat still (almost half a year) have not provided any example of an item that is both real and unfalsifiable. You tried, to your credit, but failed.
3. When Nuggin got slaughtered for his ridiculous logic, you ducked out to avoid a beating, and now still cower behind him like a wuss.
4. You still haven't looked up the burden of proof, which lies upon the idiot who invents bullsh*t ie. you, to provide it.
So provide it or f*ck off you waste of forum space.
1 - I openly admitted that. However I did point out that you made the POSITIVE assertion that it was IMpossible, without providing evidence of your claim. Your assertion remains scientifically unjustified, as science is perfectly open to the possibility - all it requires is evidence. You on the other hand ignored this fact and claimed that if there is no evidence then it does not exist. That's not how science works. Science may point out that there is no reason to think something does exist if there is no evidence. A subtle, but rather important difference.

2 - Incorrect. You were given the African wildebeest, bacteria in 1500 AD, and the multiverse. For all those months you still have not addressed this. Ergo Chimney and I still await your apology for blatantly lying about us and our positions.

3 - Nuggin is Nuggin. Dude is Dude. We make our own arguments and are not accountable to each other. I stopped going further with my argument with you when you stopped bothering to make a case. What Nuggin does now has nothing to do with me. In the meantime you DO hide behind everyone else on that thread just to throw out insults rather than make a single argument. Something which you also do while the rest of us take down creationists in a rational coherent manner on other threads. Debate is something you actively avoid in favour of stretching your emotional muscles. You are also being disingenuous, as there were more than a few people on that thread "on your side" who STILL disagreed with you and also in general think you're a idjit.(shrug) Not to mention the fact that you made a number of mistakes and couldn't own up to a single one. All evidence of this is recorded here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

4 - Actually we HAVE looked up burden of proof, and it was your reliance on dictionary definitions which got you into trouble in the first place. Science is perfectly open to the possibility of the existence of (a) God and merely demands evidence be provided. You take things just that one step too far and dogmatically assert that if there is no evidence, not only does it not exist, but it is also "impossible". Despite the fact all you have done is sat back on your azz and done NO scientific tests to support your baseless assertions. Hence by the "Skippy scientific method", the African wildebeest, bacteria and the multiverse have never been and could never be discovered as they were ruled out a priori due to the total lack of scientific evidence at the time. Remember, I have not made any positive assertion either way on whether or not (a) God exists, only pointed out how science deals with the concept. You were the one who made the positive claim, and lied and dodged all this ever since.

5 - Still waiting for you to address a single thing. You can start off with apologizing for lying.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#29 Sep 11, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
So provide it or f*ck off you waste of forum space.
Speaking of which I thank you for your very thorough scientific rebuttal of Pahu's claims.
Vegan

Wyandotte, OK

#30 Sep 12, 2012
What is life?

"Physicists have recently created cell-like blobs of gaseous plasma which, despite their lack of a mechanism for heredity, satisfy the four main criteria generally used to define living cells: they possess a boundary layer that separates their interiors from the external environment; they can replicate by splitting in two; they can grow by taking in atoms and splitting them into ions and electrons to replenish their boundary layers, and they can communicate information by emitting electromagnetic energy that causes neighbouring "cells" to resonate (Cohen, 2003)."
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/chapt...

What is a Plasma?

"Plasma is overwhemingly the dominant constituent of the universe as a whole. Yet most people are ignorant of plasmas. In daily life on the surface of planet Earth, perhaps the plasma to which people are most commonly exposed is the one that produces the cool efficient glow from fluorescent lights. Neither solid, nor liquid, nor gas, a plasma most closely resembles the latter, but unlike gases whose components are electrically neutral, plasma is composed of the building blocks of all matter: electrically charged particles at high energy.

"Plasma is so energetic or "hot" that in space it consists soley of ions and electrons. It is only when plasma is cooled that the atoms or molecules that are so predominant in forming gases, liquids, and solids that we are so accustomed to on Earth, is possible. So, in space, plasma remains electrically charged. Thus plasmas carry electric currents and are more influenced by electromagnetic forces than by gravitational forces. Outside the Earth's atmosphere, the dominant form of matter is plasma, and "empty" space has been found to be quite "alive" with a constant flow of plasma."
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/ubiquitous....

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#31 Sep 13, 2012
1. You have no evidence that "god is possible". YOu haven't provided any evidence of your claim

2. You still and I repeat still (almost half a year) have not provided any example of an item that is both real and unfalsifiable. You tried, to your credit, but failed.

3. When Nuggin got slaughtered for his ridiculous logic, you ducked out to avoid a beating, and now still cower behind him like a wuss.

4. You still haven't looked up the burden of proof, which lies upon the idiot who invents bullsh*t ie. you, to provide it.

So provide it or f*ck off you waste of forum space.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#32 Sep 13, 2012
1. Since you have no evidence. Your claim is invalid. You lose. Done.

2. Wildebeats are not unfalisifiable. If they were, they would not be real. Done.

3. You backed up his outrageous lies about me (denying the moons landings, claiming Egypt isn't real etc.) And you egged him on. When he got taken down by every single atheist poster, you backed out to avoid the heat. And now you come back like the snivelling coward that you are to take potshots.

4. It's not merely. You have to have evidence, or your claim is bullsh*t. Its the f*cking foundation of science - measuring objective realty.

So if you claim something, you better have to som damn evidence, or you will be called the liar that you are.

F*cking idiot.
Skeptic

Newtownards, UK

#33 Sep 13, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of which I thank you for your very thorough scientific rebuttal of Pahu's claims.
Try and have a look see at post of this #14 hun before you open you stupid fat lying mouth again huh?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#34 Sep 13, 2012
Vegan wrote:
What is life?
"Physicists have recently created cell-like blobs of gaseous plasma which, despite their lack of a mechanism for heredity, satisfy the four main criteria generally used to define living cells: they possess a boundary layer that separates their interiors from the external environment; they can replicate by splitting in two; they can grow by taking in atoms and splitting them into ions and electrons to replenish their boundary layers, and they can communicate information by emitting electromagnetic energy that causes neighbouring "cells" to resonate (Cohen, 2003)."
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/chapt...
What is a Plasma?
"Plasma is overwhemingly the dominant constituent of the universe as a whole. Yet most people are ignorant of plasmas. In daily life on the surface of planet Earth, perhaps the plasma to which people are most commonly exposed is the one that produces the cool efficient glow from fluorescent lights. Neither solid, nor liquid, nor gas, a plasma most closely resembles the latter, but unlike gases whose components are electrically neutral, plasma is composed of the building blocks of all matter: electrically charged particles at high energy.
"Plasma is so energetic or "hot" that in space it consists soley of ions and electrons. It is only when plasma is cooled that the atoms or molecules that are so predominant in forming gases, liquids, and solids that we are so accustomed to on Earth, is possible. So, in space, plasma remains electrically charged. Thus plasmas carry electric currents and are more influenced by electromagnetic forces than by gravitational forces. Outside the Earth's atmosphere, the dominant form of matter is plasma, and "empty" space has been found to be quite "alive" with a constant flow of plasma."
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/ubiquitous....
O hai! Just to let you know that not only is the plasma hypothesis not taken very seriously by the scientific community, but all of this is completly off-topic. Kthxbai!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#35 Sep 13, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
1. You have no evidence that "god is possible". YOu haven't provided any evidence of your claim
2. You still and I repeat still (almost half a year) have not provided any example of an item that is both real and unfalsifiable. You tried, to your credit, but failed.
3. When Nuggin got slaughtered for his ridiculous logic, you ducked out to avoid a beating, and now still cower behind him like a wuss.
4. You still haven't looked up the burden of proof, which lies upon the idiot who invents bullsh*t ie. you, to provide it.
So provide it or f*ck off you waste of forum space.
Ah, I see you're ignoring inconvenient posts again, just like a good little fundie.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#36 Sep 13, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
1. Since you have no evidence. Your claim is invalid. You lose. Done.
The evidence is that you have performed no single scientific test to demonstrate it to be impossible. I made no positive claim either way. Science simply requires evidence be presented. It does not assume a priori that something is impossible merely due to a lack of evidence. Your misunderstanding of the scientific method is your problem, not ours.
-Skeptic- wrote:
2. Wildebeats are not unfalisifiable. If they were, they would not be real. Done.
Yet they were before they were discovered. Like bacteria. And the multiverse. Keep dodging.
-Skeptic- wrote:
3. You backed up his outrageous lies about me (denying the moons landings, claiming Egypt isn't real etc.) And you egged him on. When he got taken down by every single atheist poster, you backed out to avoid the heat. And now you come back like the snivelling coward that you are to take potshots.
Nuggin is Nuggin. Dude is Dude. If you wanna deal with Nuggin's arguments deal with Nuggin. If you wanna deal with mine deal with me. I am not making his arguments and he is not making mine. I don't recall the parts about Egypt in particular so I have not backed those up. As for the moon landings, you made a language error that you have still yet to retract, and Nuggin is punishing you for not doing so. In that sense he would only be lying if you admitted your mistake and he continued to claim you deny the moon-landings. One thing you DID deny was the existence of lizard creatures, and I provided the linky. You won't admit to that one either. As for accusations of my alleged cowardice, keep in mind that I was away for a little while, and actually it is you who will not directly address my arguments except in a disingenuous manner, as in not address the points at all. Also YOU hide behind the other atheist posters there who have their issues with Nuggin, throwing out ad homs and bad language while avoiding debate (which is your style). And you neglect to mention that a number of evo posters came along and took you to task also.
-Skeptic- wrote:
4. It's not merely. You have to have evidence, or your claim is bullsh*t. Its the f*cking foundation of science - measuring objective realty.
Not quite - the claim could even be correct, but without evidence it is simply not validated. Like I said, subtle but important distinction.
-Skeptic- wrote:
So if you claim something, you better have to som damn evidence, or you will be called the liar that you are.

F*cking idiot.
Of the two of us, it is not I who has lied. I have been open and honest and explained myself in explicit detail every step of the way. Your mere disagreement with Chimney and myself does not make us liars. Your inability to deal with our posts then CONTINUED claim that we have not provided what we HAVE provided DOES make you a liar.

Still waiting for that apology, Skippo.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37 Sep 13, 2012
Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Try and have a look see at post of this #14 hun before you open you stupid fat lying mouth again huh?
What lie? Here is post 14:
Skeptic wrote:
Revisionist Creationist bullsh*t. Its sad that you can't accept the fact of Evolution and need to lie about science to promote your ignorant and dishonest faith.
Like I said, I thanked you for your very thorough and rational scientific rebuttal of his posts. Didn't I just say that this was your style?

By the way, if that's you using those judge icons on my posts, does that mean you're a creationist? Or if you agree with the science of evolution why be dishonest and mark my posts in such a manner?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#38 Sep 13, 2012
How about I'll keep slapping your face with these four crystal clear points.

1. You have no evidence that "god is possible". YOu haven't provided any evidence of your claim
2. You still and I repeat still (almost half a year) have not provided any example of an item that is both real and unfalsifiable. You tried, to your credit, but failed.
3. When Nuggin got slaughtered for his ridiculous logic, you ducked out to avoid a beating, and now still cower behind him like a wuss.
4. You still haven't looked up the burden of proof, which lies upon the idiot who invents bullsh*t ie. you, to provide it.
So provide it or f*ck off you waste of forum space.

And you keep trolling and lets see who wins, eh?

F*cking rank amateur.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#39 Sep 13, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
How about I'll keep slapping your face with these four crystal clear points.
I've dealt with them. Numerous times. To claim otherwise is dishonest until you address mine. You haven't, opting instead to repeat posts which have already been dealt with.

Ain't the first time you tried that dodge either.
-Skeptic- wrote:
And you keep trolling and lets see who wins, eh?
You lost over 6 months ago.(shrug)
-Skeptic- wrote:
F*cking rank amateur.
Ad hom.

Me and Chimney still await your apology, Skippy.
Skeptic

Newtownards, UK

#40 Sep 13, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I've dealt with them. Numerous times. To claim otherwise is dishonest until you address mine. You haven't, opting instead to repeat posts which have already been dealt with.
Ain't the first time you tried that dodge either.
<quoted text>
You lost over 6 months ago.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Ad hom.
Me and Chimney still await your apology, Skippy.
Good idea to f*ck right off now.

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
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min Eagle 12 233,189
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 1 hr One way or another 5,955
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr JOEL 23,278
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 1 hr _Bad Company 214
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 2 hr thetruth 2,624
Pastor who gave up God for a year after getting... 2 hr thetruth 3
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 2 hr thetruth 177
More from around the web