The debating skills of evolutionists

pointing out that you are the type of ruminant that refuses to even look at evidence that easily refutes your fragile claims (let alone consider it) is not an attack - it is merely a stain on your character which you have only yourself to blame for and something which renders everything you say highly suspect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

first of all, you referred me to a different thread which contained a bunch of links because you were too lazy and apparently too afraid that your great evidence for increased information would not stand up to any scrutiny. Rather than post it here you simply put forth an ad hominem and stated "bye, bye". Unfortunately, you failed to keep your promise.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

and it's age. It has been dated to before birds evolved.

I see a mutation of a bird like tail. Do you not see that mutation?

It's not a dinosaur, not a bird. It's a transitional species. I have been saying this but you seem stuck in some binary mindset it's either a dinosaur or a bird. It's someway in between, clearly.

LOL

No it is not! You really believe the story of Noah? Then there's no hope for you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You lose the debate by falling foul of Godwin's Law. Good day!

 

Dan: Actually, I quoted evolutionists who acknowledged that this is a bird in every respect. The only reason it is believed to be a dinosaur is because of its position in the strata. ”

"and it's age. It has been dated to before birds evolved."

Another words, if we find a true bird in the strata where it doesn't belong, we must call it a dinosuar-bird transition because birds are not supposed to be there and prevailing evolutionist beliefs are that birds evolved from dinosaurs? I would think that even a rabid evolutionary zealot would be embarrassed to make such an argument.


Dan: And remember, you offered "dinobird" in reference to my challenge to provide an example of an observed mutation which brought about a new organ. No mutation was observed in this example at all. It is nothing more than the presumption of evolution becoming the evidence for evolution. ”

"I see a mutation of a bird like tail. Do you not see that mutation?"

No, and neither do you, nor doesn anyone else. The bird is dead so it is impossible for it to be mutating. My challenge is related to living organisms not dead ones. It is perfectly legitamate to discuss the fossil record and its implications in this debate, but not in reference to information increases.

Dan: What does this bird possess that other birds, living and extinct, do not, which convince you that it is a dinosaur and not a bird??? ”

"It's not a dinosaur, not a bird. It's a transitional species. I have been saying this but you seem stuck in some binary mindset it's either a dinosaur or a bird. It's someway in between, clearly."

what features does it possess, besides its location in the strata and presumed age, that causes you to suggest that it is a true transition?


Dan: There is ample evidence in archeology for the biblical narrative. And the entire fossil record is evidence for the Noahic Flood. ”

"LOL

No it is not! You really believe the story of Noah? Then there's no hope for you."

How is this any different from my "argument of incredulity" over molecules to man evolution? If we are going to discuss noahs flood based upon evidence I would win hands down as there is mention of this flood in every civilization in the world. You deny this evidence on the presuppositions of the increasingly discredited geologic column myth.

 

Dan, aren't you clever enough to work out the quote system?

Put what I say in quotes, and then your additions are more obvious.

 

That all hangs on 'true bird' something you have not defined, nor shown examples of. So you fail.

Impossible for it be mutating, but very possible is has a mutation. Using grammar incorrectly doesn't make your point.

It's only you stipulating information increase. As a large part of the genome is considered redundant anyway, I really don't get your angle. Well, I do, obfuscation.

That it looks like a dinosaur, but has a birds tail, perhaps?

Are you unaware of the terminlogy? Are you talking about Evolution, or Abiogenesis? Many convolve the latter into the former, but that is through ignorance.

Oh, and please gather the evidence for the global flood from every civilisation, and make sure they are contemporaneous myths. I know you can't, but hell it'll be fun watching you try.

 

this is not a violation of this made up law. I am not calling evolutionists "nazi's". Heck, all atheists tell me that Hitler was a "christian" right

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I was merely pointing our that you are falling for the fallacy that the most popular belief of scientists is true. Scientists have been and will continue to be wrong.

 

No, I guess I am not, how do you divide the quote and interject your counterpoints? I came recently to this blog....

 

huh?

perhaps, but "possible" isn't really much of a point now is it? It is equally possible that this is just another example of a fossil out of place in the mythological geologic column. Since creationist reject the view that these layers represent millions of years of deposition but were rather laid down rapidly over approximately a year, I don't see why you feel they must embrace your argument that this bird is in any way a transition from anything to anything....

I think you are right about one thing here, you don't get it.

good gracious, it is a bird fossil drawn to look like a dinosaur with feathers and admitted by your side to be nothing but a bird out of sequence... Why not argue for archeopteryx? You might get a little further....

no, it really isn't through ignorance. Many evolutionists in print have "convolved" the two, it is just unpopular to do so today. I understand why of course. Evolution is one long chain of events which necessarily includes the origin and replication of the first mythical cell. Abiogenisis and evolution share the same hopeless statistics in terms of probability.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/flood.asp

 

Dan,

while your refusal to look at the evidence because you don't like the format (awww!) is as clear a case of the invocation Moreton's Demon, as I have ever seen, I would still be happy to provide it for you in a format in which you are more accustomed to receiving your scientific edication in.

Unfortunately I don't own a pulpit, I'd feel uncomfortable performing phoney faith healing parlour tricks during the interval, and I don't accept any major credit cards in return for salvation. So I'm afraid you'll just have to put up or shut up.

http://www.answersincreation.org/mortond.htm

 

was this silly satire meant to be a substitute for the fact you have no examples of information gaining mutations? I am not amused.

 

You have yet to refute the first example I have provided for you.

Go on, it even has pictures

 

One attribute of many scientists which I find especially appealling is a genuine desire to see truth communicated clearly and for ignorance to countered, misunderstanding corrected, and lies refuted.

You are correct that some evolutionists have conflated evolution and abiogenesis. (I have never seen the word 'convolved' in print. Perhaps I should stay in more.) There is no doubt that there are important similarities and connections between the two. However, there are also important differences and this is why they are generally treated separately.

One of the principal differences is the very precise data we have on evolution. I understand that your emotionally biased religious deviance prohibits you from recognising this evidence, while your apparent intellectual limits prevent you from understanding it. However, your incredulity, ignorance and intellectual limitations in no way invalidate the mountain of evidence that those willing to use the brain God allowed to evolve do understand and appreciate.

 

Well said, Ophiolite.

 

But they have just as much information in their genomes as their ancestors. The amount of information in the individual genome has not decreased.

If speciation required loss of information, given any related group of species we could find the ancestral one easily - it would have all the information in all the others, either in huge individual genomes or fantastic variety among many individuals. This is not observed.

Hence the difficulty of producing new species by ordinary breeding.

And note the word "most". Some of the successes involve the recognition and proliferation of new mutations and various genetic alterations - things not available in the gene pool to begin with. New information.

Such a master genome, or anything like it, has never been observed in any organism, and there are solid mechanistic reasons it would not work.

Master gene pools of the kind required have not been observed either, although they might work if certain conditions were met.

I was talking about related organisms - organisms with similar efficiencies of genomic organization. Such as "mammals" or "birds". In such related animals, the information carried is a direct function of the size of the genome.

Either the size of the individual genome or the size of the gene pool must diminish, to conclude that information has been "lost" between two related organisms.

Of the many mutations observed in laboratory fruit flies, every unique one has been a gain in the total information of the gene pool of that species of fruit flies. And some provide properties such as longevity, greater reproductive capability in certain situations, greater flying speed or endurance, more sensitivity to certain oders, tolerance to heat or cold, etc etc. And many of the others provide the fly with properties or features not found in other flies. Who are you to claim these are not "beneficial" ?

 

Perhaps Dan should provide a clear definition for 'information gaining mutation'. Is gene/chromosome duplication a 'gain in information'? What about a gene duplication followed by a point mutation, that results in the production of a new enzyme?

 

Press the '+ qoute' button on each post you wish to quote, then press 'post reply'.
This is a forum, not a blog.

You don't violate Godwin's Law, it is merely an observation of how frequently this occurs.

It is generally assumed that if you are sufficiently computer literate to post on a forum then you should also be able to follow a link and read the information there.

 

Dan has provided some criteria for new information, basically it is either a new morphological trait (new limbs/appendages, external organs), or a new physiological trait (new internal organs, new physiological processes, or new enzymes).

The problem is that he refuses to even look at any evidence for this that is presented to him (let alone actually examine it and comment on it) and makes flimsy excuses why he wont (i.e. too lazy, or doesn't like the format that the evidence is presented in).
I predict that we will either see a pattern of ever more transparent excuses for failing to look at the evidence (too busy is a common one that fundaligionists use), or Dan will simply abandon the thread in shame.

In short any meaningful discussion of new information that isn't simply preaching to the choir is dead in the water as a result and evolution wins by default.

 

From that site;

"fascinating circumstantial evidence'.

Not the quality I was asking for. Not the unbiased site I was asking for. Not one date.

Please try harder?