| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
30 May 2007 09:23:39 PM |
| Object: |
Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
The debate challenge was simple:
http://tinyurl.com/2o4o93
"You will present your positive scientific evidence for creation, I
will, I guarantee you, completely refute it."
That was issued May 12th 2007. Here we are at the end of the month,
and Bob Crowley still hasn't offered even a single item of positive
scientific evidence for creation.
He can't.
The funny thing is that he's too afraid to get into evolution,
especially after his whining about transitional forms was shot to
pieces, so he's been trying to focus on abiogenesis. But on May 17th,
almost 2 weeks ago, I posted this list of steps and signposts from
organic chemicals to life.
This doesn't prove abiogenesis, but it shows quite clearly and
unarguably that it's not impossible.
It shows that the hard work of real scientists is bearing fruit.
It shows that in the same time-period during which the creationists
have not moved even one inch closer to finding their first shred of
evidence, science has moved cionsiderably closer to understanding how
abiogeneiss could well have occurred.
Did Bob try to rebut *any* of this?
Nope. He ran away from it
That's why he's a coward.
Then he *demanded* that I *prove* every single step! LoL! In a
debate where he was supposed to provide *any* positive scientific
evidence for a creation and he couldn't offer even *one* step, he
*demands* that I *prove* every single step!
That's why he's a hypocrite.
And he's continuing to pretend that there's no way abiogenesis could
happen.
That's why he's a liar. And for him to do this after I presented the
following list is why he's stupid.
But to be fair, he's no different from any other creationist I've ever
encountered.
"A team of NASA exobiology researchers revealed today organic
chemicals that play a crucial role in the chemistry of life are common
in space."
http://tinyurl.com/9bfah
In other words, not only do these precursors to life exist naturally,
they're common.
But they are in space. How do they reach Earth? Experiments have
shown that such chemistry occurs right here on Earth - or it did in
prebiotic atmospheric conditions that geologists have shown existed on
Earth several billion years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey
Could "locally grown chemistry have started life?
" A laboratory model of a deep ocean vent has convinced Japanese
scientists that life on Earth began at the bottom of the ocean more
than three and a half billion years ago."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/275738.stm
Could they come to Earth on meteors and comets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murchison_meteorite "A complex mixture of
alkanes was isolated as well which was similar to that found in the
Miller-Urey experiment."
Could they survive the impact?
"By simulating a high-velocity comet collision with the Earth, a team
of scientists has shown that organic molecules hitch-hiking aboard a
comet could have survived an impact and seeded life on Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1262216.stm
Could they congegate in sufficient undisturbed volume to actually make
a start on life?
"Scientists understand several probable steps in the origin of life,
notably how the first organic molecules could have formed. In fact,
prebiotic synthesis processes are now thought to have been so
productive that the ancient Earth must have had far more different
kinds of molecules than could have been used by early life."
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4670
Where could these molecules collect together?
"The birthplace for life on Earth may have been labyrinthine networks
of tubes on the surface of rocks. In these natural test tubes, the
complex molecules needed for life could have evolved in safety, taking
its building blocks from the water washing over the rock and from the
minerals within. New research argues that the pores provide the
perfect sheltered environment for the chain of chemical reactions
necessary to evolve the first bacteria."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/239787.stm
Can they form "boundary structures" similar to cell walls?
"Boundary structures are formed by organic components of the Murchison
carbonaceous chondrite"
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v317/n6040/abs/317792a0.html
But can this actually work in practice?
"Scientists have managed to create 'primitive cells' in an experiment
which may indicate that life began in space and was delivered to
Earth."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1142840.stm
Can molecules mimic life?
"German scientists have created artificial life in the laboratory.
They have made molecules that are capable of copying themselves.
Although several labs around the world have done the same, these
molecules can evolve as well."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/217054.stm
How complex would the first cell need to be?
"When the entire 580,000-unit DNA sequence was completed, this free-
living microbe was discovered to have only 470 genes that code for
proteins. The human genome, by comparison, recently was estimated to
contain some 30,000...."
http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Accomplishments/Decades_Discovery/77.html
The smallest genome so far?
"Researchers now say that a symbiotic bacterium called Carsonella
ruddii, which lives off sap-feeding insects, has taken the record for
smallest genome with just 159,662 'letters' (or base pairs) of DNA and
182 protein-coding genes."
http://tinyurl.com/ybca4u
J. Craig Venter aims to find out just how small the gneome can go:
"In 2003 the team made significant advances toward the goal of a
synthetic genome. Using new methods the group improved the speed and
accuracy of genomic synthesis by assembling the 5,386 base pair
bacteriophage ?X174 (phi X)."
http://www.venterinstitute.org/research/
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
30 May 2007 09:45:59 PM |
|
|
And Lo! and Behold! A new article on the very topic right here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18882828/site/newsweek/
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
31 May 2007 06:43:41 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 12:45 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
And Lo! and Behold! A new article on the very topic right here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18882828/site/newsweek/
Budikka
Seeing in your arrogance you've decided to increase your libel to
several headings, I'll stick to just this one.
I was talking to my Catholic psychiatrist today (yeah, that's right -
a psychiatrist, but since he and I share common spiritual experiences,
that admission doesn't worry me - in fact, he was the one who coined
"double whammy" in relation to a certain experience, which we'd both
experienced), I brought up this issue of atheism, evolution etc. He
spoke about Dawkins as being a "very irritating man". He also made
the point that it is impossible for a single celled organism to
develop into a multicelled organism. Being a doctor by training, as
psychiatrists are expected to be, he'd know what he was talking
about. He also commented taht Dawkins in his mention that "religion
is the root of all evil" seemed to have conveniently forgotten the
millions of victims of official atheism in the last century - USSR,
China, Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam etc.
He pointed to a book he had on his shelf on some branch of medicine.
He knew the author personally, and the author used to be some sort of
head of research in the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation - our Australian version of a science outfit).
At one stage the author said he was the "obligatory atheist" (although
there are many Christian scientists, whose work is not affected in the
least by the alleged theory of evolution).
Now it appears there is some sort of glass electrode which is used to
measure pH during experiments. The above mentioned author wanted it
to be able to do something else as well. So he set to work to design
one that would do what he wanted. As it turned out, his comment to my
psychiatrist was "You've got no idea how complex the mathematics and
design was. It was unbelievable!"
While he was trying to work out how to make this glass electrode do
two things, he was shown something by one of his other colleagues in
the CSIRO. Apparently there is a cell in or around the hypothalamus
which has five finger like pointers hanging down. This cell measure
FIVE different things, pH being one of them, and the second function
the above author wanted being another. Then it transmits this five
sets of information down a dedicated nerve channel to the brain to be
interpreted and acted upon.
It was at that point he abandoned his "obligatory atheism". In other
words, he had struggled with trying to get the glass electrode to do
just two things, and then found this cell which did five of them. He
realised then that there was a designer at work.
Atheists can't even work out how a cell can be created by abiogenesis,
let alone devise a dedicated monitoring system like this cell.
The psychiatrist also mentioned that the bloke who'd got the Nobel
Prize for creating amino acids way back in a test tube using
electricity etc. which I then said I thought was probably either Urey
or Miller from the famous Urey-Miller experiment, was recently
blacklisted from speaking on a certain campus. The reason? After
years of research, he had come to the conclusion that there was a
template for the DNA molecule - that is, it was designed. I don't
know if it was Miller or Urey, although I assume it was one or the
other.
Excommunication anyone?
The psychiatrist's final comment? "For anyone to be an atheist,
they've got to IGNORE a lot of questions".
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
31 May 2007 11:41:20 AM |
|
|
<bobcrowley@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180611821.363523.285440@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The psychiatrist's final comment? "For anyone to be an atheist,
they've got to IGNORE a lot of questions".
And believe in a magical fantastical creation by invisable magical
beings........... *sigh*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
31 May 2007 07:20:59 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 12:43 pm, wrote:
On May 31, 12:45 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
And Lo! and Behold! A new article on the very topic right here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18882828/site/newsweek/
Budikka
Seeing in your arrogance you've decided to increase your libel to
several headings, I'll stick to just this one.
I was talking to my Catholic psychiatrist today (yeah, that's right -
a psychiatrist, but since he and I share common spiritual experiences,
that admission doesn't worry me - in fact, he was the one who coined
"double whammy" in relation to a certain experience, which we'd both
experienced), I brought up this issue of atheism, evolution etc. He
spoke about Dawkins as being a "very irritating man". He also made
the point that it is impossible for a single celled organism to
develop into a multicelled organism. Being a doctor by training, as
psychiatrists are expected to be, he'd know what he was talking
about. He also commented taht Dawkins in his mention that "religion
is the root of all evil" seemed to have conveniently forgotten the
millions of victims of official atheism in the last century - USSR,
China, Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam etc.
He pointed to a book he had on his shelf on some branch of medicine.
He knew the author personally, and the author used to be some sort of
head of research in the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation - our Australian version of a science outfit).
At one stage the author said he was the "obligatory atheist" (although
there are many Christian scientists, whose work is not affected in the
least by the alleged theory of evolution).
Now it appears there is some sort of glass electrode which is used to
measure pH during experiments. The above mentioned author wanted it
to be able to do something else as well. So he set to work to design
one that would do what he wanted. As it turned out, his comment to my
psychiatrist was "You've got no idea how complex the mathematics and
design was. It was unbelievable!"
While he was trying to work out how to make this glass electrode do
two things, he was shown something by one of his other colleagues in
the CSIRO. Apparently there is a cell in or around the hypothalamus
which has five finger like pointers hanging down. This cell measure
FIVE different things, pH being one of them, and the second function
the above author wanted being another. Then it transmits this five
sets of information down a dedicated nerve channel to the brain to be
interpreted and acted upon.
It was at that point he abandoned his "obligatory atheism". In other
words, he had struggled with trying to get the glass electrode to do
just two things, and then found this cell which did five of them. He
realised then that there was a designer at work.
Atheists can't even work out how a cell can be created by abiogenesis,
let alone devise a dedicated monitoring system like this cell.
The psychiatrist also mentioned that the bloke who'd got the Nobel
Prize for creating amino acids way back in a test tube using
electricity etc. which I then said I thought was probably either Urey
or Miller from the famous Urey-Miller experiment, was recently
blacklisted from speaking on a certain campus. The reason? After
years of research, he had come to the conclusion that there was a
template for the DNA molecule - that is, it was designed. I don't
know if it was Miller or Urey, although I assume it was one or the
other.
Excommunication anyone?
The psychiatrist's final comment? "For anyone to be an atheist,
they've got to IGNORE a lot of questions".
A nice little ramble - an appeal to authority (a psychiatrist????),
but oddly no evidence at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
31 May 2007 07:55:54 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 10:20 pm, Nosterill <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 31, 12:43 pm, wrote:
On May 31, 12:45 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
And Lo! and Behold! A new article on the very topic right here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18882828/site/newsweek/
Budikka
Seeing in your arrogance you've decided to increase your libel to
several headings, I'll stick to just this one.
I was talking to my Catholic psychiatrist today (yeah, that's right -
a psychiatrist, but since he and I share common spiritual experiences,
that admission doesn't worry me - in fact, he was the one who coined
"double whammy" in relation to a certain experience, which we'd both
experienced), I brought up this issue of atheism, evolution etc. He
spoke about Dawkins as being a "very irritating man". He also made
the point that it is impossible for a single celled organism to
develop into a multicelled organism. Being a doctor by training, as
psychiatrists are expected to be, he'd know what he was talking
about. He also commented taht Dawkins in his mention that "religion
is the root of all evil" seemed to have conveniently forgotten the
millions of victims of official atheism in the last century - USSR,
China, Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam etc.
He pointed to a book he had on his shelf on some branch of medicine.
He knew the author personally, and the author used to be some sort of
head of research in the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation - our Australian version of a science outfit).
At one stage the author said he was the "obligatory atheist" (although
there are many Christian scientists, whose work is not affected in the
least by the alleged theory of evolution).
Now it appears there is some sort of glass electrode which is used to
measure pH during experiments. The above mentioned author wanted it
to be able to do something else as well. So he set to work to design
one that would do what he wanted. As it turned out, his comment to my
psychiatrist was "You've got no idea how complex the mathematics and
design was. It was unbelievable!"
While he was trying to work out how to make this glass electrode do
two things, he was shown something by one of his other colleagues in
the CSIRO. Apparently there is a cell in or around the hypothalamus
which has five finger like pointers hanging down. This cell measure
FIVE different things, pH being one of them, and the second function
the above author wanted being another. Then it transmits this five
sets of information down a dedicated nerve channel to the brain to be
interpreted and acted upon.
It was at that point he abandoned his "obligatory atheism". In other
words, he had struggled with trying to get the glass electrode to do
just two things, and then found this cell which did five of them. He
realised then that there was a designer at work.
Atheists can't even work out how a cell can be created by abiogenesis,
let alone devise a dedicated monitoring system like this cell.
The psychiatrist also mentioned that the bloke who'd got the Nobel
Prize for creating amino acids way back in a test tube using
electricity etc. which I then said I thought was probably either Urey
or Miller from the famous Urey-Miller experiment, was recently
blacklisted from speaking on a certain campus. The reason? After
years of research, he had come to the conclusion that there was a
template for the DNA molecule - that is, it was designed. I don't
know if it was Miller or Urey, although I assume it was one or the
other.
Excommunication anyone?
The psychiatrist's final comment? "For anyone to be an atheist,
they've got to IGNORE a lot of questions".
A nice little ramble - an appeal to authority (a psychiatrist????),
but oddly no evidence at all.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The psychiatrist is a doctor, who would have studied some genetics at
university level. In addition he has a very wide range of contacts in
the medical and scientific community.
Secondly the author the book was, as I said, was once a head
researcher in the CSIRO, which is not something your average garden
variety of scientist gets to become. The evidence is actually inside
your own head - it's a cell which monitors five different chemical
functions - you've got one, I've got one, even Buddika's got one.
SInce you know so much, tell me how it originated. I'll say here and
now I believe it was incorporated into our design. That's my
explanation.
But since you don't believe there is design at work, then show me how
it came about. That should be easy enough for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
31 May 2007 08:24:07 AM |
|
|
On May 31, 10:55 pm, wrote:
On May 31, 10:20 pm, Nosterill <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 31, 12:43 pm, wrote:
On May 31, 12:45 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
And Lo! and Behold! A new article on the very topic right here:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18882828/site/newsweek/
Budikka
Seeing in your arrogance you've decided to increase your libel to
several headings, I'll stick to just this one.
I was talking to my Catholic psychiatrist today (yeah, that's right -
a psychiatrist, but since he and I share common spiritual experiences,
that admission doesn't worry me - in fact, he was the one who coined
"double whammy" in relation to a certain experience, which we'd both
experienced), I brought up this issue of atheism, evolution etc. He
spoke about Dawkins as being a "very irritating man". He also made
the point that it is impossible for a single celled organism to
develop into a multicelled organism. Being a doctor by training, as
psychiatrists are expected to be, he'd know what he was talking
about. He also commented taht Dawkins in his mention that "religion
is the root of all evil" seemed to have conveniently forgotten the
millions of victims of official atheism in the last century - USSR,
China, Cambodia, Cuba, Vietnam etc.
He pointed to a book he had on his shelf on some branch of medicine.
He knew the author personally, and the author used to be some sort of
head of research in the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation - our Australian version of a science outfit).
At one stage the author said he was the "obligatory atheist" (although
there are many Christian scientists, whose work is not affected in the
least by the alleged theory of evolution).
Now it appears there is some sort of glass electrode which is used to
measure pH during experiments. The above mentioned author wanted it
to be able to do something else as well. So he set to work to design
one that would do what he wanted. As it turned out, his comment to my
psychiatrist was "You've got no idea how complex the mathematics and
design was. It was unbelievable!"
While he was trying to work out how to make this glass electrode do
two things, he was shown something by one of his other colleagues in
the CSIRO. Apparently there is a cell in or around the hypothalamus
which has five finger like pointers hanging down. This cell measure
FIVE different things, pH being one of them, and the second function
the above author wanted being another. Then it transmits this five
sets of information down a dedicated nerve channel to the brain to be
interpreted and acted upon.
It was at that point he abandoned his "obligatory atheism". In other
words, he had struggled with trying to get the glass electrode to do
just two things, and then found this cell which did five of them. He
realised then that there was a designer at work.
Atheists can't even work out how a cell can be created by abiogenesis,
let alone devise a dedicated monitoring system like this cell.
The psychiatrist also mentioned that the bloke who'd got the Nobel
Prize for creating amino acids way back in a test tube using
electricity etc. which I then said I thought was probably either Urey
or Miller from the famous Urey-Miller experiment, was recently
blacklisted from speaking on a certain campus. The reason? After
years of research, he had come to the conclusion that there was a
template for the DNA molecule - that is, it was designed. I don't
know if it was Miller or Urey, although I assume it was one or the
other.
Excommunication anyone?
The psychiatrist's final comment? "For anyone to be an atheist,
they've got to IGNORE a lot of questions".
A nice little ramble - an appeal to authority (a psychiatrist????),
but oddly no evidence at all.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The psychiatrist is a doctor, who would have studied some genetics at
university level. In addition he has a very wide range of contacts in
the medical and scientific community.
Secondly the author the book was, as I said, was once a head
researcher in the CSIRO, which is not something your average garden
variety of scientist gets to become. The evidence is actually inside
your own head - it's a cell which monitors five different chemical
functions - you've got one, I've got one, even Buddika's got one.
SInce you know so much, tell me how it originated. I'll say here and
now I believe it was incorporated into our design. That's my
explanation.
But since you don't believe there is design at work, then show me how
it came about. That should be easy enough for you.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I will comment that I was the one who raised the issue as part of our
general conversation. The psychiatrist normally didn't really care
what people thought about evolution / creation. I suppose he is too
busy with his work.
One other thing he did say however, which I didn't know. Humans have
a layer of blubber under their skin, and we are more or less hairless,
something we share with dolphins and whales in both cases, and seals
in the case of blubber.
But primates don't have blubber under their skin. So it would be a
strange ancestor which on the one hand gave rise to hairy primates
without blubber and hairless humans with blubber.
Female humans also have a deep, "waterproof" vagina, again something
that primates don't have. What's the purpose?
Is it because we were designed to be so universal that we would be
better served by wearing clothes to survive in all sorts of
temperature ranges, with blubber to help us live in and around watery
places? Who knows, but I thought they were interesting little
oddities.
He also made the comment that the same evolutionist professor who
pondered these questions also noted that a full 50% of British people
claim to have had some experience of God. When he examined the
statistics, those who were mentally ill tended NOT to have such
experiences, or if they did, it was when they were in the process of
getting better.
The "double whammy" bit came about not long after I started seeing
this psychiatrist. I related a certain experience I'd had, and he
said "You mean a 'double whammy'?" I was a bit taken aback, but it
was useful finding someone who believed me. The reason was that he'd
experienced the very same thing himself, and he had no doubt it was
due to an invisible external cause. If I've got a two ton truck
pressing on my chest and giving me chest pains, I think I'm in a
position to distinguish between that and chest pains that might be
caused by something like indigestion, angina or a heart attack. I'd
know if the cause was external or internal. And so would you.
The particular thing I'm talking about, something like a breath
suddenly going through you in waves from head to foot, was inflicted
externally, in a particular context, at a particular time (3 times
actually, and 3 times only in 25 years as a Christian), and with a
particular, very clear message in each case, being used to highlight
certain words being spoken by a certain person.
That's why he coined it a 'double whammy' and he's experienced it
himself, and again it came with a message. And there would be quite a
few other people who have experienced something similar, just as there
are quite a number of people who have experienced NDE's, which I
haven't experienced.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy W" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
31 May 2007 06:49:35 PM |
|
|
One other thing he did say however, which I didn't know. Humans have
a layer of blubber under their skin, and we are more or less hairless,
something we share with dolphins and whales in both cases, and seals
in the case of blubber.
But primates don't have blubber under their skin. So it would be a
strange ancestor which on the one hand gave rise to hairy primates
without blubber and hairless humans with blubber.
Female humans also have a deep, "waterproof" vagina, again something
that primates don't have. What's the purpose?
Is it because we were designed to be so universal that we would be
better served by wearing clothes to survive in all sorts of
temperature ranges, with blubber to help us live in and around watery
places? Who knows, but I thought they were interesting little
oddities.
There is a theory of human evolution known as "aquatic ape theory",
not as widely accepted as the savannah theory but still interesting.
It argues that many of the unique features of humans can be explained
if our ancestors at some stage developed on the shoreline and spent a
lot of time in the water. Thus you get the adaptations you mention
above, which we have in common with aquatic mammals, and others such
as the fact that new born infant humans can swim, not a very useful
skill on the savannah. It suggests, if I remember rightly, that humans
began to walk upright in order to keep their heads above water.
Another feature of this theory is that it offers an explanation for
the origin of human speech: you need to be able to control your
breathing to hold your breath under water, and this in turn gives you
the ability to form distinct sounds that later become words.
Personally I like it. Unfortunately there isn't any fossil evidence
that supports it as yet, largely because people don't look for fossils
in the places where the evidence would be (like under water).
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
01 Jun 2007 09:49:33 PM |
|
|
On Jun 1, 9:49 am, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
One other thing he did say however, which I didn't know. Humans have
a layer of blubber under their skin, and we are more or less hairless,
something we share with dolphins and whales in both cases, and seals
in the case of blubber.
But primates don't have blubber under their skin. So it would be a
strange ancestor which on the one hand gave rise to hairy primates
without blubber and hairless humans with blubber.
Female humans also have a deep, "waterproof" vagina, again something
that primates don't have. What's the purpose?
Is it because we were designed to be so universal that we would be
better served by wearing clothes to survive in all sorts of
temperature ranges, with blubber to help us live in and around watery
places? Who knows, but I thought they were interesting little
oddities.
There is a theory of human evolution known as "aquatic ape theory",
not as widely accepted as the savannah theory but still interesting.
It argues that many of the unique features of humans can be explained
if our ancestors at some stage developed on the shoreline and spent a
lot of time in the water. Thus you get the adaptations you mention
above, which we have in common with aquatic mammals, and others such
as the fact that new born infant humans can swim, not a very useful
skill on the savannah. It suggests, if I remember rightly, that humans
began to walk upright in order to keep their heads above water.
Another feature of this theory is that it offers an explanation for
the origin of human speech: you need to be able to control your
breathing to hold your breath under water, and this in turn gives you
the ability to form distinct sounds that later become words.
Personally I like it. Unfortunately there isn't any fossil evidence
that supports it as yet, largely because people don't look for fossils
in the places where the evidence would be (like under water).
Andy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Another of these unsupported theories hey? No evidence, no fossils,
just a nice thought?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
02 Jun 2007 12:02:33 PM |
|
|
<bobcrowley@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180752573.675157.302670@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Another of these unsupported theories hey? No evidence, no fossils,
just a nice thought?
Do you have any real evidence or fossils of your gods and demons?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
02 Jun 2007 07:05:11 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 12:02:33 -0500, "The Apostate"
<durondae_@_hotpop.com> wrote:
- Refer: <f3s7rc$7tj$1@registered.motzarella.org>
<bobcrowley@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1180752573.675157.302670@r19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Another of these unsupported theories hey? No evidence, no fossils,
just a nice thought?
Do you have any real evidence or fossils of your gods and demons?
Only in his miniscule mendacious mind.
Let's start digging.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy W" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
02 Jun 2007 05:30:39 PM |
|
|
On 2 Jun, 03:49, wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:49 am,AndyW<vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
One other thing he did say however, which I didn't know. Humans have
a layer of blubber under their skin, and we are more or less hairless,
something we share with dolphins and whales in both cases, and seals
in the case of blubber.
But primates don't have blubber under their skin. So it would be a
strange ancestor which on the one hand gave rise to hairy primates
without blubber and hairless humans with blubber.
Female humans also have a deep, "waterproof" vagina, again something
that primates don't have. What's the purpose?
Is it because we were designed to be so universal that we would be
better served by wearing clothes to survive in all sorts of
temperature ranges, with blubber to help us live in and around watery
places? Who knows, but I thought they were interesting little
oddities.
There is a theory of human evolution known as "aquatic ape theory",
not as widely accepted as the savannah theory but still interesting.
It argues that many of the unique features of humans can be explained
if our ancestors at some stage developed on the shoreline and spent a
lot of time in the water. Thus you get the adaptations you mention
above, which we have in common with aquatic mammals, and others such
as the fact that new born infant humans can swim, not a very useful
skill on the savannah. It suggests, if I remember rightly, that humans
began to walk upright in order to keep their heads above water.
Another feature of this theory is that it offers an explanation for
the origin of human speech: you need to be able to control your
breathing to hold your breath under water, and this in turn gives you
the ability to form distinct sounds that later become words.
Personally I like it. Unfortunately there isn't any fossil evidence
that supports it as yet, largely because people don't look for fossils
in the places where the evidence would be (like under water).
Andy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Another of these unsupported theories hey? No evidence, no fossils,
just a nice thought?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That is not what I said. The evidence for the theory is all the
anatomical adaptations humans have that they share with aquatic
mammals but not with other primates. They have skin tightly bound to
their muscles. They have unusual patterns of hair growth. They have
more subcutaneous fat. Their infants can swim. And so on. I recently
heard they even have a waterproof vagina, would you believe. All of
these characteristics unquestionably exist in humans, and are
therefore evidence. The explanation that they developed these because
of a stint of living on a shoreline makes a lot of sense. However,
until hominid fossils are found in locations that would have been
shores at the time, it is less well supported than the savannah
theory, which does have the fossils to back it up. Less well supported
does not mean unsupported though.
It's also worth remembering that both theories address the question
"How did humans evolve?", not "Did humans evolve?". That question is a
whole separate discussion and body of evidence, and since you already
seem to be having that discussion elsewhere I won't press it here. But
in case you can't be bothered to go through the evidence, I skipped to
the end and the answer was "yes".
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
03 Jun 2007 09:24:33 AM |
|
|
On Jun 2, 5:30 pm, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
On 2 Jun, 03:49, wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:49 am,AndyW<vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
One other thing he did say however, which I didn't know. Humans have
a layer of blubber under their skin, and we are more or less hairless,
something we share with dolphins and whales in both cases, and seals
in the case of blubber.
But primates don't have blubber under their skin. So it would be a
strange ancestor which on the one hand gave rise to hairy primates
without blubber and hairless humans with blubber.
Female humans also have a deep, "waterproof" vagina, again something
that primates don't have. What's the purpose?
Is it because we were designed to be so universal that we would be
better served by wearing clothes to survive in all sorts of
temperature ranges, with blubber to help us live in and around watery
places? Who knows, but I thought they were interesting little
oddities.
There is a theory of human evolution known as "aquatic ape theory",
not as widely accepted as the savannah theory but still interesting.
It argues that many of the unique features of humans can be explained
if our ancestors at some stage developed on the shoreline and spent a
lot of time in the water. Thus you get the adaptations you mention
above, which we have in common with aquatic mammals, and others such
as the fact that new born infant humans can swim, not a very useful
skill on the savannah. It suggests, if I remember rightly, that humans
began to walk upright in order to keep their heads above water.
Another feature of this theory is that it offers an explanation for
the origin of human speech: you need to be able to control your
breathing to hold your breath under water, and this in turn gives you
the ability to form distinct sounds that later become words.
Personally I like it. Unfortunately there isn't any fossil evidence
that supports it as yet, largely because people don't look for fossils
in the places where the evidence would be (like under water).
Andy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Another of these unsupported theories hey? No evidence, no fossils,
just a nice thought?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That is not what I said. The evidence for the theory is all the
anatomical adaptations humans have that they share with aquatic
mammals but not with other primates. They have skin tightly bound to
their muscles. They have unusual patterns of hair growth. They have
more subcutaneous fat. Their infants can swim. And so on. I recently
heard they even have a waterproof vagina, would you believe. All of
these characteristics unquestionably exist in humans, and are
therefore evidence. The explanation that they developed these because
of a stint of living on a shoreline makes a lot of sense. However,
until hominid fossils are found in locations that would have been
shores at the time, it is less well supported than the savannah
theory, which does have the fossils to back it up. Less well supported
does not mean unsupported though.
It's also worth remembering that both theories address the question
"How did humans evolve?", not "Did humans evolve?". That question is a
whole separate discussion and body of evidence, and since you already
seem to be having that discussion elsewhere I won't press it here. But
in case you can't be bothered to go through the evidence, I skipped to
the end and the answer was "yes".
Andy
This is the so-called "aquatic ape" hypothesis popularised by Elaine
Morgan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape
but it's far from mainstream.
And to the point, it gets absolutely zero mention in Bible creation
mythology, which is what the lying cowardly hypocrite Bob Crowley is
supposed to be offering positive scientific support for!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andy W" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
03 Jun 2007 06:09:46 PM |
|
|
On 3 Jun, 15:24, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Jun 2, 5:30 pm,AndyW<vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
On 2 Jun, 03:49, wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:49 am,AndyW<vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
One other thing he did say however, which I didn't know. Humans have
a layer of blubber under their skin, and we are more or less hairless,
something we share with dolphins and whales in both cases, and seals
in the case of blubber.
But primates don't have blubber under their skin. So it would be a
strange ancestor which on the one hand gave rise to hairy primates
without blubber and hairless humans with blubber.
Female humans also have a deep, "waterproof" vagina, again something
that primates don't have. What's the purpose?
Is it because we were designed to be so universal that we would be
better served by wearing clothes to survive in all sorts of
temperature ranges, with blubber to help us live in and around watery
places? Who knows, but I thought they were interesting little
oddities.
There is a theory of human evolution known as "aquatic ape theory",
not as widely accepted as the savannah theory but still interesting.
It argues that many of the unique features of humans can be explained
if our ancestors at some stage developed on the shoreline and spent a
lot of time in the water. Thus you get the adaptations you mention
above, which we have in common with aquatic mammals, and others such
as the fact that new born infant humans can swim, not a very useful
skill on the savannah. It suggests, if I remember rightly, that humans
began to walk upright in order to keep their heads above water.
Another feature of this theory is that it offers an explanation for
the origin of human speech: you need to be able to control your
breathing to hold your breath under water, and this in turn gives you
the ability to form distinct sounds that later become words.
Personally I like it. Unfortunately there isn't any fossil evidence
that supports it as yet, largely because people don't look for fossils
in the places where the evidence would be (like under water).
Andy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Another of these unsupported theories hey? No evidence, no fossils,
just a nice thought?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That is not what I said. The evidence for the theory is all the
anatomical adaptations humans have that they share with aquatic
mammals but not with other primates. They have skin tightly bound to
their muscles. They have unusual patterns of hair growth. They have
more subcutaneous fat. Their infants can swim. And so on. I recently
heard they even have a waterproof vagina, would you believe. All of
these characteristics unquestionably exist in humans, and are
therefore evidence. The explanation that they developed these because
of a stint of living on a shoreline makes a lot of sense. However,
until hominid fossils are found in locations that would have been
shores at the time, it is less well supported than the savannah
theory, which does have the fossils to back it up. Less well supported
does not mean unsupported though.
It's also worth remembering that both theories address the question
"How did humans evolve?", not "Did humans evolve?". That question is a
whole separate discussion and body of evidence, and since you already
seem to be having that discussion elsewhere I won't press it here. But
in case you can't be bothered to go through the evidence, I skipped to
the end and the answer was "yes".
Andy
This is the so-called "aquatic ape" hypothesis popularised by Elaine
Morgan:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape
but it's far from mainstream.
That's a terrible pun but evidently true.
And to the point, it gets absolutely zero mention in Bible creation
mythology, which is what the lying cowardly hypocrite Bob Crowley is
supposed to be offering positive scientific support for!
Budikka- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't think any creationist really recognises the scale of the
challenge they set themselves. As well as all their other problems,
they will have to address all the evidence currently used to support
evolution, and explain why creationism offers a *better* explanation
for *all* of it, including the suboptimal stuff like the bad wiring in
the eye. I don't think I've ever seen a creationist even acknowledge
this issue let alone deal with it. They just try to discredit the
mechanisms, which might fool people whose knowledge of evolution isn't
much better, but it's hardly going to work in here.
Andy
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
03 Jun 2007 09:42:19 PM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 9:09 am, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
On 3 Jun, 15:24, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Jun 2, 5:30 pm,AndyW<vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
On 2 Jun, 03:49, wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:49 am,AndyW<vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
One other thing he did say however, which I didn't know. Humans have
a layer of blubber under their skin, and we are more or less hairless,
something we share with dolphins and whales in both cases, and seals
in the case of blubber.
But primates don't have blubber under their skin. So it would be a
strange ancestor which on the one hand gave rise to hairy primates
without blubber and hairless humans with blubber.
Female humans also have a deep, "waterproof" vagina, again something
that primates don't have. What's the purpose?
Is it because we were designed to be so universal that we would be
better served by wearing clothes to survive in all sorts of
temperature ranges, with blubber to help us live in and around watery
places? Who knows, but I thought they were interesting little
oddities.
There is a theory of human evolution known as "aquatic ape theory",
not as widely accepted as the savannah theory but still interesting.
It argues that many of the unique features of humans can be explained
if our ancestors at some stage developed on the shoreline and spent a
lot of time in the water. Thus you get the adaptations you mention
above, which we have in common with aquatic mammals, and others such
as the fact that new born infant humans can swim, not a very useful
skill on the savannah. It suggests, if I remember rightly, that humans
began to walk upright in order to keep their heads above water.
Another feature of this theory is that it offers an explanation for
the origin of human speech: you need to be able to control your
breathing to hold your breath under water, and this in turn gives you
the ability to form distinct sounds that later become words.
Personally I like it. Unfortunately there isn't any fossil evidence
that supports it as yet, largely because people don't look for fossils
in the places where the evidence would be (like under water).
Andy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Another of these unsupported theories hey? No evidence, no fossils,
just a nice thought?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That is not what I said. The evidence for the theory is all the
anatomical adaptations humans have that they share with aquatic
mammals but not with other primates. They have skin tightly bound to
their muscles. They have unusual patterns of hair growth. They have
more subcutaneous fat. Their infants can swim. And so on. I recently
heard they even have a waterproof vagina, would you believe. All of
these characteristics unquestionably exist in humans, and are
therefore evidence. The explanation that they developed these because
of a stint of living on a shoreline makes a lot of sense. However,
until hominid fossils are found in locations that would have been
shores at the time, it is less well supported than the savannah
theory, which does have the fossils to back it up. Less well supported
does not mean unsupported though.
It's also worth remembering that both theories address the question
"How did humans evolve?", not "Did humans evolve?". That question is a
whole separate discussion and body of evidence, and since you already
seem to be having that discussion elsewhere I won't press it here. But
in case you can't be bothered to go through the evidence, I skipped to
the end and the answer was "yes".
Andy
This is the so-called "aquatic ape" hypothesis popularised by Elaine
Morgan:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape
but it's far from mainstream.
That's a terrible pun but evidently true.
And to the point, it gets absolutely zero mention in Bible creation
mythology, which is what the lying cowardly hypocrite Bob Crowley is
supposed to be offering positive scientific support for!
Budikka- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't think any creationist really recognises the scale of the
challenge they set themselves. As well as all their other problems,
they will have to address all the evidence currently used to support
evolution, and explain why creationism offers a *better* explanation
for *all* of it, including the suboptimal stuff like the bad wiring in
the eye. I don't think I've ever seen a creationist even acknowledge
this issue let alone deal with it. They just try to discredit the
mechanisms, which might fool people whose knowledge of evolution isn't
much better, but it's hardly going to work in here.
Andy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Without even knowing what the "bad wiring" in the eye is about, and I
have no doubt you can enlighten me, most designers run up against a
problem of optimum design sooner or later. In other words, there is
usually a trade off of one quality for another. A heavily armoured
tank offers better protection for its crew - it's sheer weight due to
all the armour slows it down, making it an easier target. Putting in
a stronger engine to speed it up helps to overcome that problem, but
delivers another problem in increased fuel consumption. That sort of
thing - even God would face problems in that area, due to the fact
that He is still working within the constraints of the physical laws
He has Himself imposed, and with biological materials.
The human eye is a pretty remarkable item. What atheists do is find
out just the weak points and ignore all the strong points.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
03 Jun 2007 11:39:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Jun 4, 9:09 am, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
On 3 Jun, 15:24, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Jun 2, 5:30 pm,AndyW<vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
On 2 Jun, 03:49, wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:49 am,AndyW<vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
One other thing he did say however, which I didn't know. Humans have
a layer of blubber under their skin, and we are more or less hairless,
something we share with dolphins and whales in both cases, and seals
in the case of blubber.
But primates don't have blubber under their skin. So it would be a
strange ancestor which on the one hand gave rise to hairy primates
without blubber and hairless humans with blubber.
Female humans also have a deep, "waterproof" vagina, again something
that primates don't have. What's the purpose?
Is it because we were designed to be so universal that we would be
better served by wearing clothes to survive in all sorts of
temperature ranges, with blubber to help us live in and around watery
places? Who knows, but I thought they were interesting little
oddities.
There is a theory of human evolution known as "aquatic ape theory",
not as widely accepted as the savannah theory but still interesting.
It argues that many of the unique features of humans can be explained
if our ancestors at some stage developed on the shoreline and spent a
lot of time in the water. Thus you get the adaptations you mention
above, which we have in common with aquatic mammals, and others such
as the fact that new born infant humans can swim, not a very useful
skill on the savannah. It suggests, if I remember rightly, that humans
began to walk upright in order to keep their heads above water.
Another feature of this theory is that it offers an explanation for
the origin of human speech: you need to be able to control your
breathing to hold your breath under water, and this in turn gives you
the ability to form distinct sounds that later become words.
Personally I like it. Unfortunately there isn't any fossil evidence
that supports it as yet, largely because people don't look for fossils
in the places where the evidence would be (like under water).
Andy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Another of these unsupported theories hey? No evidence, no fossils,
just a nice thought?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That is not what I said. The evidence for the theory is all the
anatomical adaptations humans have that they share with aquatic
mammals but not with other primates. They have skin tightly bound to
their muscles. They have unusual patterns of hair growth. They have
more subcutaneous fat. Their infants can swim. And so on. I recently
heard they even have a waterproof vagina, would you believe. All of
these characteristics unquestionably exist in humans, and are
therefore evidence. The explanation that they developed these because
of a stint of living on a shoreline makes a lot of sense. However,
until hominid fossils are found in locations that would have been
shores at the time, it is less well supported than the savannah
theory, which does have the fossils to back it up. Less well supported
does not mean unsupported though.
It's also worth remembering that both theories address the question
"How did humans evolve?", not "Did humans evolve?". That question is a
whole separate discussion and body of evidence, and since you already
seem to be having that discussion elsewhere I won't press it here. But
in case you can't be bothered to go through the evidence, I skipped to
the end and the answer was "yes".
Andy
This is the so-called "aquatic ape" hypothesis popularised by Elaine
Morgan:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape
but it's far from mainstream.
That's a terrible pun but evidently true.
And to the point, it gets absolutely zero mention in Bible creation
mythology, which is what the lying cowardly hypocrite Bob Crowley is
supposed to be offering positive scientific support for!
Budikka- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't think any creationist really recognises the scale of the
challenge they set themselves. As well as all their other problems,
they will have to address all the evidence currently used to support
evolution, and explain why creationism offers a *better* explanation
for *all* of it, including the suboptimal stuff like the bad wiring in
the eye. I don't think I've ever seen a creationist even acknowledge
this issue let alone deal with it. They just try to discredit the
mechanisms, which might fool people whose knowledge of evolution isn't
much better, but it's hardly going to work in here.
Andy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Without even knowing what the "bad wiring" in the eye is about, and I
have no doubt you can enlighten me, most designers run up against a
problem of optimum design sooner or later. In other words, there is
usually a trade off of one quality for another. A heavily armoured
tank offers better protection for its crew - it's sheer weight due to
all the armour slows it down, making it an easier target. Putting in
a stronger engine to speed it up helps to overcome that problem, but
delivers another problem in increased fuel consumption. That sort of
thing - even God would face problems in that area, due to the fact
that He is still working within the constraints of the physical laws
He has Himself imposed, and with biological materials.
That's ridiculous. To put such constraints on G-d and what G-d does is
pagan. But so is Christianity when it divides G-d into two or three parts.
The human eye is a pretty remarkable item. What atheists do is find
out just the weak points and ignore all the strong points.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
05 Jun 2007 06:33:10 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Without even knowing what the "bad wiring" in the eye is about, and I
have no doubt you can enlighten me, most designers run up against a
problem of optimum design sooner or later. In other words, there is
usually a trade off of one quality for another. A heavily armoured
tank offers better protection for its crew - it's sheer weight due to
all the armour slows it down, making it an easier target. Putting in
a stronger engine to speed it up helps to overcome that problem, but
delivers another problem in increased fuel consumption.
Most designers aren't omnipotent. I could design a tank using
carbon-fiber armor that would be both fast AND strong but it wouldn't be
cost-effective. But an omnipotent being could design it using pure
diamond armor and spider silk for treads.
That sort of
thing - even God would face problems in that area, due to the fact
that He is still working within the constraints of the physical laws
He has Himself imposed, and with biological materials.
Then he shouldn't have imposed such constraining laws of nature.
Remember, he's OMNIPOTENT (supposedly.)
Seems like all you can do is offer up excuses for this sorry example of
a god of yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
05 Jun 2007 09:24:29 AM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 9:33 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
bobcrow...@dodo.com.au wrote:
Without even knowing what the "bad wiring" in the eye is about, and I
have no doubt you can enlighten me, most designers run up against a
problem of optimum design sooner or later. In other words, there is
usually a trade off of one quality for another. A heavily armoured
tank offers better protection for its crew - it's sheer weight due to
all the armour slows it down, making it an easier target. Putting in
a stronger engine to speed it up helps to overcome that problem, but
delivers another problem in increased fuel consumption.
Most designers aren't omnipotent. I could design a tank using
carbon-fiber armor that would be both fast AND strong but it wouldn't be
cost-effective. But an omnipotent being could design it using pure
diamond armor and spider silk for treads.
That sort of
thing - even God would face problems in that area, due to the fact
that He is still working within the constraints of the physical laws
He has Himself imposed, and with biological materials.
Then he shouldn't have imposed such constraining laws of nature.
Remember, he's OMNIPOTENT (supposedly.)
Seems like all you can do is offer up excuses for this sorry example of
a god of yours.
God may be omnipotent, but in the end if He is going to create
something, He has to make a choice about what how He's going to make
it. Once He's decided on a particular creation, then the options He
may have had for other creations go out the window.
If you have to make up your mind whether you're going to build a boat
or a car, then you're omnipotently free to daydream and speculate
about either until you actually decide which one you're going to make.
From that time however, you're committed to the boat or the car, but
not both. In that respect, by His own choice, God limited Himself to
this creation, so long as it lasts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
05 Jun 2007 10:36:39 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Jun 5, 9:33 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
bobcrow...@dodo.com.au wrote:
Without even knowing what the "bad wiring" in the eye is about, and I
have no doubt you can enlighten me, most designers run up against a
problem of optimum design sooner or later. In other words, there is
usually a trade off of one quality for another. A heavily armoured
tank offers better protection for its crew - it's sheer weight due to
all the armour slows it down, making it an easier target. Putting in
a stronger engine to speed it up helps to overcome that problem, but
delivers another problem in increased fuel consumption.
Most designers aren't omnipotent. I could design a tank using
carbon-fiber armor that would be both fast AND strong but it wouldn't be
cost-effective. But an omnipotent being could design it using pure
diamond armor and spider silk for treads.
That sort of
thing - even God would face problems in that area, due to the fact
that He is still working within the constraints of the physical laws
He has Himself imposed, and with biological materials.
Then he shouldn't have imposed such constraining laws of nature.
Remember, he's OMNIPOTENT (supposedly.)
Seems like all you can do is offer up excuses for this sorry example of
a god of yours.
God may be omnipotent, but in the end if He is going to create
something, He has to make a choice about what how He's going to make
it. Once He's decided on a particular creation, then the options He
may have had for other creations go out the window.
Not if he's omnipotent. Why do you keep restricting your god like this?
If you have to make up your mind whether you're going to build a boat
or a car, then you're omnipotently free to daydream and speculate
about either until you actually decide which one you're going to make.
From that time however, you're committed to the boat or the car, but
not both. In that respect, by His own choice, God limited Himself to
this creation, so long as it lasts.
And yet I can design a vehicle that is both a boat AND a car. Strange
that your god can't do the same.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
05 Jun 2007 09:05:51 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 11:36:39 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <f43vu7$8j2$1@news04.infoave.net>
bobcrowley@dodo.com.au wrote:
On Jun 5, 9:33 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
bobcrow...@dodo.com.au wrote:
Without even knowing what the "bad wiring" in the eye is about, and I
have no doubt you can enlighten me, most designers run up against a
problem of optimum design sooner or later. In other words, there is
usually a trade off of one quality for another. A heavily armoured
tank offers better protection for its crew - it's sheer weight due to
all the armour slows it down, making it an easier target. Putting in
a stronger engine to speed it up helps to overcome that problem, but
delivers another problem in increased fuel consumption.
Most designers aren't omnipotent. I could design a tank using
carbon-fiber armor that would be both fast AND strong but it wouldn't be
cost-effective. But an omnipotent being could design it using pure
diamond armor and spider silk for treads.
That sort of
thing - even God would face problems in that area, due to the fact
that He is still working within the constraints of the physical laws
He has Himself imposed, and with biological materials.
Then he shouldn't have imposed such constraining laws of nature.
Remember, he's OMNIPOTENT (supposedly.)
Seems like all you can do is offer up excuses for this sorry example of
a god of yours.
God may be omnipotent, but in the end if He is going to create
something, He has to make a choice about what how He's going to make
it. Once He's decided on a particular creation, then the options He
may have had for other creations go out the window.
Not if he's omnipotent. Why do you keep restricting your god like this?
If you have to make up your mind whether you're going to build a boat
or a car, then you're omnipotently free to daydream and speculate
about either until you actually decide which one you're going to make.
From that time however, you're committed to the boat or the car, but
not both. In that respect, by His own choice, God limited Himself to
this creation, so long as it lasts.
And yet I can design a vehicle that is both a boat AND a car. Strange
that your god can't do the same.
The big difference is that you actually exist.
Bob's god is only a figment of his extremely limited imagination.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Toby A Inkster" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
07 Jun 2007 09:56:26 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
Mike wrote:
And yet I can design a vehicle that is both a boat AND a car. Strange
that your god can't do the same.
The big difference is that you actually exist.
Bob's god is only a figment of his extremely limited imagination.
Nonexistence is likely to hamper a designer's creativity.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
URLs in demiblog
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2007/05/31/demiblog-urls/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
07 Jun 2007 06:37:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 15:56:26 +0100, Toby A Inkster
<usenet200705@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <qtilj4-h76.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk>
Michael Gray wrote:
Mike wrote:
And yet I can design a vehicle that is both a boat AND a car. Strange
that your god can't do the same.
The big difference is that you actually exist.
Bob's god is only a figment of his extremely limited imagination.
Nonexistence is likely to hamper a designer's creativity.
But nonexistence has it's positive side too:
It hampers any destructive tendencies, as well.
And the God of Bob's "mind" is an entirely vicious, capricious
genocidal sadist.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andy W" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
04 Jun 2007 06:10:48 PM |
|
|
On 4 Jun, 03:42, wrote:
<snip for brevity>
I don't think any creationist really recognises the scale of the
challenge they set themselves. As well as all their other problems,
they will have to address all the evidence currently used to support
evolution, and explain why creationism offers a *better* explanation
for *all* of it, including the suboptimal stuff like the bad wiring in
the eye. I don't think I've ever seen a creationist even acknowledge
this issue let alone deal with it. They just try to discredit the
mechanisms, which might fool people whose knowledge of evolution isn't
much better, but it's hardly going to work in here.
Andy
Without even knowing what the "bad wiring" in the eye is about, and I
have no doubt you can enlighten me, most designers run up against a
problem of optimum design sooner or later. In other words, there is
usually a trade off of one quality for another. A heavily armoured
tank offers better protection for its crew - it's sheer weight due to
all the armour slows it down, making it an easier target. Putting in
a stronger engine to speed it up helps to overcome that problem, but
delivers another problem in increased fuel consumption. That sort of
thing - even God would face problems in that area, due to the fact
that He is still working within the constraints of the physical laws
He has Himself imposed, and with biological materials.
The human eye is a pretty remarkable item. What atheists do is find
out just the weak points and ignore all the strong points.
Really, you haven't come across this one before?
From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#morphological_inefficiency
"Another anatomical example of suboptimality is the inverted mammalian
retina, with its blind spot. It is inverted because the retinal blood
vessels and nerves are situated on top of the retina, and light must
travel through them first before hitting the light sensitive cells
below. The blind spot is caused by the hole where the nerves all meet
and pierce through the retina to travel to the brain. In order to deal
with the many problems inherent in an inverted retina, the vertebrate
eye utilizes various complex compensatory structures and mechanisms
(e.g. foveas and slower, more transparent unmyelinated nerves).
"Cephalopods (e.g. squids and octopi) have eyes with a similar form
based on the same mechanistic principles as mammalian eyes. However,
in contrast with mammalian eyes, cephalopod eyes have very different
underlying retinal structures (e.g. they are verted, not inverted),
and they have no blind spots (Goldsmith 1990; Williams 1992, pp.
72-74). This strongly suggests that mammals also could have eyes
without blind spots.
"There are many other examples of suboptimal function in the Jury-
rigged Design FAQ. "
This really isn't a case of a trade off. The vertebrate eye is put
together in an inefficient way. To an evolutionist this sort of thing
is to be expected: systems such as this come about by small changes to
what is already there, and you can't take down what you've already got
and start again, so it is inevitable that you will get things that,
although they work, are more complicated than they really need to be.
If the eye had been put together from scratch by any sort of designer,
you would expect the most effective design possible, and that isn't
what we've got. The eye looks as if it evolved; to claim that it had a
designer, you will need to explain why it looks the way it does or
your explanation simply isn't as good.
And that, I'm afraid, is just the tip of a really big iceburg for you.
The eye isn't the best possible design, this is a simple fact. There
is now an enormous accumulation of other facts, some similar to this,
others more diverse, that all fit into the model of evolution. These
facts do not just go away if you want to use a different model, such
as creationism. You still have to be able to explain them and show
that they fit into your model at least as well as they do in ours. And
if you really want to prove creationism, that's what you have to deal
with: you will have to find out what all of that evidence is
(properly, not from creationist sources which will inevitably get it
wrong). You will have to understand how and why it fits into the
evolution model, and then you will have to try to come up with a
creationist model that accomodates *all* of that data as well as, or
better than, evolution, and then explain why. Simply chipping away at
mutation and natural selection won't even come close to doing it.
So do you think you're up to this? Is any creationist? All of them
together?
Let's see what you can do.
Andy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #3 |
04 Jun 2007 01:51:59 AM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 10:42 am, wrote:
On Jun 4, 9:09 am, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
On 3 Jun, 15:24, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
On Jun 2, 5:30 pm,AndyW<vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
On 2 Jun, 03:49, wrote:
On Jun 1, 9:49 am,AndyW<vor...@mailinator.com> wrote:
One other thing he did say however, which I didn't know. Humans have
a layer of blubber under their skin, and we are more or less hairless,
something we share with dolphins and whales in both cases, and seals
in the case of blubber.
But primates don't have blubber under their skin. So it would be a
strange ancestor which on the one hand gave rise to hairy primates
without blubber and hairless humans with blubber.
Female humans also have a deep, "waterproof" vagina, again something
that primates don't have. What's the purpose?
Is it because we were designed to be so universal that we would be
better served by wearing clothes to survive in all sorts of
temperature ranges, with blubber to help us live in and around watery
places? Who knows, but I thought they were interesting little
oddities.
There is a theory of human evolution known as "aquatic ape theory",
not as widely accepted as the savannah theory but still interesting.
It argues that many of the unique features of humans can be explained
if our ancestors at some stage developed on the shoreline and spent a
lot of time in the water. Thus you get the adaptations you mention
above, which we have in common with aquatic mammals, and others such
as the fact that new born infant humans can swim, not a very useful
skill on the savannah. It suggests, if I remember rightly, that humans
began to walk upright in order to keep their heads above water.
Another feature of this theory is that it offers an explanation for
the origin of human speech: you need to be able to control your
breathing to hold your breath under water, and this in turn gives you
the ability to form distinct sounds that later become words.
Personally I like it. Unfortunately there isn't any fossil evidence
that supports it as yet, largely because people don't look for fossils
in the places where the evidence would be (like under water).
Andy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Another of these unsupported theories hey? No evidence, no fossils,
just a nice thought?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That is not what I said. The evidence for the theory is all the
anatomical adaptations humans have that they share with aquatic
mammals but not with other primates. They have skin tightly bound to
their muscles. They have unusual patterns of hair growth. They have
more subcutaneous fat. Their infants can swim. And so on. I recently
heard they even have a waterproof vagina, would you believe. All of
these characteristics unquestionably exist in humans, and are
therefore evidence. The explanation that they developed these because
of a stint of living on a shoreline makes a lot of sense. However,
until hominid fossils are found in locations that would have been
shores at the time, it is less well supported than the savannah
theory, which does have the fossils to back it up. Less well supported
does not mean unsupported though.
It's also worth remembering that both theories address the question
"How did humans evolve?", not "Did humans evolve?". That question is a
whole separate discussion and body of evidence, and since you already
seem to be having that discussion elsewhere I won't press it here. But
in case you can't be bothered to go through the evidence, I skipped to
the end and the answer was "yes".
Andy
This is the so-called "aquatic ape" hypothesis popularised by Elaine
Morgan:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape
but it's far from mainstream.
That's a terrible pun but evidently true.
And to the point, it gets absolutely zero mention in Bible creation
mythology, which is what the lying cowardly hypocrite Bob Crowley is
supposed to be offering positive scientific support for!
Budikka- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I don't think any creationist really recognises the scale of the
challenge they set themselves. As well as all their other problems,
they will have to address all the evidence currently used to support
evolution, and explain why creationism offers a *better* explanation
for *all* of it, including the suboptimal stuff like the bad wiring in
the eye. I don't think I've ever seen a creationist even acknowledge
this issue let alone deal with it. They just try to discredit the
mechanisms, which might fool people whose knowledge of evolution isn't
much better, but it's hardly going to work in here.
Andy- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Without even knowing what the "bad wiring" in the eye is about, and I
have no doubt you can enlighten me, most designers run up against a
problem of optimum design sooner or later. In other words, there is
usually a trade off of one quality for another. A heavily armoured
tank offers better protection for its crew - it's sheer weight due to
all the armour slows it down, making it an easier target. Putting in
a stronger engine to speed it up helps to overcome that problem, but
delivers another problem in increased fuel consumption. That sort of
thing - even God would face problems in that area, due to the fact
that He is still working within the constraints of the physical laws
He has Himself imposed, and with biological materials.
The human eye is a pretty remarkable item. What atheists do is find
out just the weak points and ignore all the strong points.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What are you talking about?
You, as representative of Creationist, said god has to work within the
constrain of this physical world?
So, in effect, your god is not powerful and all mighty?
If he could create human from nothing and still have limitation, what
has crossed your mind?
Ultimately, your god is what human made it to be, that's all....!
Yap
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Bob Crowley - Creationist Liar, Hypocrite and Coward #14 |
04 Jun 2007 05:29:33 PM |
|
|
The debate challenge was simple:
http://tinyurl.com/2o4o93
"You will present your positive scientific evidence for creation, I
will, I guarantee you, completely refute it."
That debate challenge was issued May 12th 2007. Here we are at the
end of the month, and Bob Crowley still hasn't offered even a single
item of positive scientific evidence for creation. Worse, he's
spastically posting patently hypocritical assinine horseshit. | | | | | | | | | | | | |
