31 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritRead what creationists say about the woodpecker. Then give me
what, you never heard of a library?
a link where the evolutionists explains how it evolved.
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm
http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/Evolution%20of%20Creationist/MOGC%2010.htm
http://www.projectcreation.org/creation_spotlight/spotlight_detail.php?PRKey=40
http://www.t-cog.net/Woodpecker.PDF
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsyou've been given one.
Read what creationists say about the woodpecker. Then give me
a link where the evolutionists explains how it evolved.
http://www.creationism.org/heinze/Woodpecker.htm
http://www.present-truth.org/3-Nature/Evolution%20of%20Creationist/MOGC%2010.htm
http://www.projectcreation.org/creation_spotlight/spotlight_detail.php?PRKey=40
http://www.t-cog.net/Woodpecker.PDF
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
after reading it, scroll down to the references and read those as well. it's quiet a project, but you'll come out knowing more about woodpeckers and how they evolved than anyone here.
as a bonus, it even outlines some of the distortions you'll find in those creationist sites you like to visit. those creationist sites like throwing around a lot of pseudo-science to impress those who don't know better.
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThat is certainly much information compiled by the evolutionist against
you've been given one.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodpecker/woodpecker.html
after reading it, scroll down to the references and read those as well. it's quiet a project, but you'll come out knowing more about woodpeckers and how they evolved than anyone here.
as a bonus, it even outlines some of the distortions you'll find in those creatio ...[text shortened]... sites like throwing around a lot of pseudo-science to impress those who don't know better.
the creationist claim. But I am not satisfied that they have shown how
the woodpecker evolved. I can understand how a created bird could
devolve by losing genetic information, but I do not understand how it
could evolve by gaining new useful genetic information. Where is the
source of this new genetic information and how would it be possible for
it to come into existence.
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsyou aren't qualified to be dissatisfied with their explanation when you haven't read the reference material nor do you have sufficient background in science or the theory of evolution in general to be able to make a qualified opinion on the more complicated topic of a specific case.
That is certainly much information compiled by the evolutionist against
the creationist claim. But I am not satisfied that they have shown how
the woodpecker evolved. I can understand how a created bird could
devolve by losing genetic information, but I do not understand how it
could evolve by gaining new useful genetic information. Where is the
source of this new genetic information and how would it be possible for
it to come into existence.
i'll even hazard a guess that you didn't even read the information that has been compiled. you're that sort of guy.
31 Aug 11
the story of rj and his car.
one day, rj overhears his mechanic explaining that his car is run by mechanical locomotion powered by combustion of fuel. befuddled, he asks his pastor about what he has heard.
his pastor explains that he has heard ridiculous lies. everyone knows that cars are powered by the spirit of god.
fortified with great knowledge, rj confronts the mechanic with what he has learned. the mechanic, out of kindness, compiles a diagram explaining the process involved and suggests several reference books on automechanics which will explain the process in greater detail.
undaunted, rj calmly explains that he is not satisfied with the mechanic's explanation. he can see how cars might break down, but he can't understand how cars can run without the spirit of god.
satisfied that he has won the argument, rj drives away on his spirit powered car and goes straight to the gas station to fill up on fuel.
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritI read everything that had to do with the woodpecker. There was
you aren't qualified to be dissatisfied with their explanation when you haven't read the reference material nor do you have sufficient background in science or the theory of evolution in general to be able to make a qualified opinion on the more complicated topic of a specific case.
i'll even hazard a guess that you didn't even read the information that has been compiled. you're that sort of guy.
nothing that explained or proved it evolved. In fact there could
have been some devolving.
31 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsit doesn't say that. it says that for some more in depth information, read the book. the example about alpha-beta divide gives an example and thus answers the question.
Okay, I finally had the time to read through the link where Dawkins
explains information theory. But He says we will have to read his books
to get the answer to the creationists question since he would not repeat
it. A nice way to sell some more books, I guess.
"Now here’s an equally fascinating point. Given that the split between the alpha cluster and the beta cluster took place 500 million years ago, it will of course not be just our human genomes that show the split — possess alpha genes in a different part of the genome from beta genes. We should see the same within-genome split if we look at any other mammals, at birds, reptiles, amphibians and bony fish, for our common ancestor with all of them lived less than 500 million years ago. Wherever it has been investigated, this expectation has proved correct. Our greatest hope of finding a vertebrate that does not share with us the ancient alpha/beta split would be a jawless fish like a lamprey, for they are our most remote cousins among surviving vertebrates; they are the only surviving vertebrates whose common ancestor with the rest of the vertebrates is sufficiently ancient that it could have predated the alpha/beta split. Sure enough, these jawless fishes are the only known vertebrates that lack the alpha/beta divide."
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by ZahlanziI don't see how that answers my question. If it does I don't understand it.
it doesn't say that. it says that for some more in depth information, read the book. the example about alpha-beta divide gives an example and thus answers the question.
"Now here’s an equally fascinating point. Given that the split between the alpha cluster and the beta cluster took place 500 million years ago, it will of course not be just our human ge ...[text shortened]... enough, these jawless fishes are the only known vertebrates that lack the alpha/beta divide."
Perhaps it is over my head. But I thought he was supposed to be able
to explain things is laymans terms so anyone could understand.
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by Proper Knob
Evolution is CHANGE. If an organisms genetic information changes then it has evolved.
It's as simple as that.
Evolution is CHANGE. If an organisms genetic information changes then it has evolved.
It's as simple as that.
I was wondering when the critic proof definition of Evolution was coming out. Evolution is change !
Now who could possibly disbelieve in CHANGE ??
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by jaywillThanks for that cutting insight jaywill.
Evolution is CHANGE. If an organisms genetic information changes then it has evolved.
It's as simple as that.
I was wondering when the [b]critic proof definition of Evolution was coming out. Evolution is change !
Now who could possibly disbelieve in CHANGE ??[/b]
Best if you stick to your evangelising and diatribes.
31 Aug 11
Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it does matter. according to dawkins in the link googlefudge provided, extra information doesn't mean an extra copy of the existing dna. that is redundancy. extra information is dna that does something new.
it is pointless to argue this as you can't point to a fish and watch it become a lizard. and that is the only evidence rjhinds and others like him ...[text shortened]... o that one
this:http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/
it is pointless to argue this as you can't point to a fish and watch it become a lizard. and that is the only evidence rjhinds and others like him will ever accept.
This is only a problem to those Evos who want to pass on Evolution as an indisputable fact, like a religious dogma.
If that is the case then just say that you have a theory.
If that is the case how are so scientifically certain that fish to lizard actually occured ?
You want to shide others for holding to religious faith. What about some Evolutionists doing the same with thier religious faith ?