Science vs. Creationism

[MVP]

I guess size doesn't matter to you, if Dophin peni are equivalent to whale peni in your mind, but really they both use their pelvic girdles to support their sexual reproductive system.

Because I think labeling the bones that make up the pelvic girdle "tibia" and "femur" is ridiculous if they don't serve that function.

They do not use it to support it. Most of mammal penises are attached to the same structures, there is nothing unique about whale or dolphins penis attachment, if anything it proves common ancestor.
There are numerous bones which do not serve that function anymore yet they are named that way - think human tailbone, is that offensive or ridiculous to you? Plus whale tibia and femur are not part of pelvis whatsoever, you getting confused here. There are vestigial bones. Ones which got smaller in size as they are no longer needed. But that does not make them part of the pelvis.

 

[PearlWatson]

I assume that I'm correct in believing that you are a man that believes in god, believes in the teachings of his son, Jesus, and believes in the concept of an afterlife. In your life, in your perspective, those are all great things. If they help you to become a contributing member of society, a moral being who does good, how could I as an Atheist have any issue with that? That's all I want for the member's in the society I am a part of. In regards to your post I quoted, it seems to me that you are more concerned about having some sort of "gotcha" moment and proving an Atheist wrong than being happy for your fellow man who now gets to share in everlasting peace in the kingdom of Heaven.

Not really concerned about gotcha. I recognize AKMVP and I have different world views and I was just stating mine. He thinks it is sad for me to believe in what he calls a myth and I think it is sad he is missing out on valuable truths he refuses to recognize. That's all.

The hell stuff was just a philosophical discussion which brought into play whether or not unbelievers get to share in everlasting peace or if there will be a price to play before they can.

I think many Atheists have this similar position. If someone can show me proof, than why would I balk at the notion of a God? I also find it interesting that pearlwatson believes in this one god but does not believe in the other gods throughout history. The only difference between pearl, babe, the other believers in this thread and myself is that I go one god further in my disbelief.

Yeah I understand you want "proof" to have "faith." I have my "proof" but it was only after I had "faith." God is weird like that.

I have heard of it, though I prefer Marcus Aurelius' take on belief:

I prefer it because it's based in proactive being. It's rooted in the social contract we have with each other in respect to doing good to one and other. It's not belief for sake of belief, which we can both agree, is prevalent in our society. There are many folks who consider themselves Christians and speak about the teachings of Jesus but don't live their lives in any sort of meaningful or valued way.

I agree with the last sentence and can appreciate your preference.

 

[MVP]

I would like to see what explanation creationists would come up after watching this video on very interesting bird Hoatzin from S. America. Another living proof on evolution, another nail in coffin of creationism.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00bm2c7

 

[MVP]

He thinks it is sad for me to believe in what he calls a myth and I think it is sad he is missing out on valuable truths he refuses to recognize.

hey , whatever works for you and makes you happy. And how can I recognize those valuable "truths" if your God made it look like a fairy tale/myth? Don't you think he/she/it would have made it a bit more obvious/believable? Now it is no more believable than unicorns.

 

[PearlWatson]

They do not use it to support it. Most of mammal penises are attached to the same structures, there is nothing unique about whale or dolphins penis attachment, if anything it proves common ancestor.
There are numerous bones which do not serve that function anymore yet they are named that way - think human tailbone, is that offensive or ridiculous to you? Plus whale tibia and femur are not part of pelvis whatsoever, you getting confused here. There are vestigial bones. Ones which got smaller in size as they are no longer needed. But that does not make them part of the pelvis.

Those bones Darwinists labeled "tibia" and "femur" are part of the pelvic girdle and serve a supportive function, for the muscles and sexual organs, very different from leg bones so it is ridiculous to label them so.
They are very much needed and have been designed the correct size for the functionality they serve in Dolphins and Whales.

 

[PearlWatson]

One of Lenski's twelve strains became capable of utilizing citrate under aerobic conditions. That's a new ability.

That's an ability they already have used under different conditions.

Darwinists:
fish----> fish who live part of their life on land, a subgroup of fish called amphibians

That's cute how you call frogs a subgroup of fish.

 

[MVP]

Those bones Darwinists labeled "tibia" and "femur" are part of the pelvic girdle and serve a supportive function, for the muscles and sexual organs, very different from leg bones so it is ridiculous to label them so.
They are very much needed and have been designed the correct size for the functionality they serve in Dolphins and Whales.

Why you are being so stubborn and going against well established scientific/anatomical, physiological facts with this nonsense?
Obviously they are different from our leg bones since they are vestigial. Yet they are still femur and tibia and not part of pelvis.
You have a tailbone. Do you find it ridiculous?

 

[PearlWatson]

When the repeated paragraph develops a typo, that's new information.
Yes, until the next edition has a typo in that randomly created paragraph, creating new information.

What a mess of a response.

If you are duplicating a paragraph, it ain't "randomly created."

I guess it depends on what you mean by "typo." If you are using it in typical fashion a "typo" only comes into play when an an outside intelligent force is involved (a typist), is initially creating a paragraph.

But we ain't talking about the initial creation of the paragraph, we are talking about the duplication of the paragraph. Typists ain't involved in duplication.

 

[PearlWatson]

The problem isn't the challenge itself-- its your justifications behind your challenges. No one takes you seriously -- and clearly you don't either-- if this is seriously how you go about 'challenging Darwin ideological agenda'.
PS: Please tell me what you think my agenda is. I'm all ears.

Oh thread god, what justifications can I challenge the Darwinian agenda with?

Creationism?
ID theory?
Anti Darwinian?
Anti Statism?
Anti godless myth/hoax?

 

[PearlWatson]

Creationists:

fish----> any kind of animal the Creator decides it should birth.

That is a bizarre interpretation of what creationism is.

It is really quite simple.

Ancestral Bacteria--->other types of bacteria

Ancestral Fish--->other types of fish

Ancestral Cats---> other types of cats.

Ancestral Dog---->other kinds of dogs.

 

[PearlWatson]

Why you are being so stubborn and going against well established scientific/anatomical, physiological facts with this nonsense?
Obviously they are different from our leg bones since they are vestigial. Yet they are still femur and tibia and not part of pelvis.
You have a tailbone. Do you find it ridiculous?

Those bones are obviously part of the pelvic girdle, serve a supportive function, and are different in males and female whales.

You are the stubborn Darwinist who insists they serve no function and must be shrunk down leg bones just hanging out there for no damn reason because you need Darwinism to be true in order to deny God.

I don't know what my beautifully designed tailbone has to do with this discussion, but it serves several valuable functions.

"The tailbone is the flexible anchor for the spinal cord and its tough outer layer. The coccyx is an important part of the pelvic floor. It is also the origin of several muscles and ligaments and plays a vital role in your health. The unique function of the tailbone is movement. The coccyx also connects the right and left hips (ilia) as well as the front and back of the pelvis (sacrum and pubic bones)."

 

[One Brow]

That's an ability they already have used under different conditions.

Exactly. If you're a water-breather and your descendants breath air, they are using the old ability in new conditions, making it a new ability.

That's cute how you call frogs a subgroup of fish.

Truth is cuter than fiction.

 

[One Brow]

What a mess of a response.

If you are duplicating a paragraph, it ain't "randomly created."

It's not done deliberately. If you prefer, we can call it "accidentally created". Golden-dolphin-immortal-porpoise-it-means-the-same-thing-it's-synonymous.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "typo." If you are using it in typical fashion a "typo" only comes into play when an an outside intelligent force is involved (a typist), is initially creating a paragraph.

Incorrect. Typos can occur due to mistakes in the transmission/copying process with no human intervention. For example, when OCR readers are used, typos are common.

But we ain't talking about the initial creation of the paragraph, we are talking about the duplication of the paragraph. Typists ain't involved in duplication.

Yet, these duplications happen from time to time, without being designed, and increase information as a result.

 

[One Brow]

That is a bizarre interpretation of what creationism is.

You are the one who believes in the all-powerful being capable of anything. In particular, I'd lay money you believe that if God wants a dog to give birth to a cat, it would happen. In evolutionary theory, that can never happen.

 

[Stoked]

You are the one who believes in the all-powerful being capable of anything. In particular, I'd lay money you believe that if God wants a dog to give birth to a cat, it would happen. In evolutionary theory, that can never happen.

Usually the belief in God comes with the caveat that he is all powerful.. So if that is what God wanted to happen it would.

 

[PearlWatson]

You are the one who believes in the all-powerful being capable of anything. In particular, I'd lay money you believe that if God wants a dog to give birth to a cat, it would happen. In evolutionary theory, that can never happen.

Holy hell, I'm in Darwiniac Bizzaro World.

You believe fish begat frogs, but then say I am the one who believes a dog can begat a cat.

 

[PearlWatson]

"The adverse effects of gene duplication, such as Down’s syndrome, are well known. Although the methodology is available, evidence of functionally useful genes as a result of duplication is yet to be documented."

I posted two articles that refute this-- and you have yet to respond in pertinence to this.

There may be some semantic or actual conflicts between two of my sources.

Interpret your articles for me in terms of this question:

What are the two "new" functions you say are a result of "gene duplication" and what mechanism brought about the new function? Try to keep it as simple as possible...let's say a sentence for each "new" function.

 

[PearlWatson]

Exactly. If you're a water-breather and your descendants breath air, they are using the old ability in new conditions, making it a new ability.

IF a monkey flew out my butt it would be using the old ability in a new way, thus making a new ability.

Too bad neither of our scenarios ever happened.

 

[MVP]

Those bones are obviously part of the pelvic girdle, serve a supportive function, and are different in males and female whales.

False, false and false. Please post any links to these absurd claims.

I don't know what my beautifully designed tailbone has to do with this discussion, but it serves several valuable functions.

It is not designed. It is vestigial. All mammals have a tail at one point in their development - in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. This tail is most prominent in human embryos 31–35 days old. The tailbone, located at the end of the spine, has lost its original function in assisting balance and mobility, though it still serves some secondary functions, such as being an attachment point for muscles, which explains why it has not degraded further. And variation of number of fused vertebrae ( 3 to 5) of the tailbone further proves its vestigiality.
But I am happy at least you are not calling tailbone ridiculous

 

[PearlWatson]

But I am happy at least you are not calling tailbone ridiculous

It didn't even occur to me since it is the vernacular. No one ever talks about the Dolphin or Whale "tibia" and "femur."

The design of all these mislabled parts you talk about is obvious to me, but go on believing in "vestigial" organs. I ain't going to talk you out of it, because you are extremely dogmatic in your beliefs, but I will present one part of the Creationism argument anyway because it goes along with the information theory I have been talking about.

"The notion of vestigial organs as an argument for evolution fails on a number of counts.
Firstly, vestigial organs provide no positive evidence for evolution. They are presented as negative evidence against a designer. And even if the vestigial organ argument were true, it at best presents examples of degeneration or information loss. This is the opposite of what evolution requires to explain the origin of the complexity and diversity of life."​