Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout

1293031323335»

Comments

  • bambu
    bambu Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    Oceanic wrote: »
    what books would you recommend, G?

    bambu wrote: »

    @Oceanic.....

    Be patient.....

    I will go back to schooling your ass shortly...........

    6bb61e3b7bce0931da574d19d1d82c88-1624.jpg
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    LOL... you taking my words out of context like I forgot I said em. I was asking you about egyptian history, which you know a lot about. Unfortunately, you're ignorant when it comes to other things like evolution so like I said, back to the drawing board for ya. Rethink your ? and then come back with a better argument.
  • bambu
    bambu Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Tough talk from a ? with no argument.......

    You weren't so tough when you tried to defend your weak ass position.........
    Oceanic wrote: »
    Well whatever man ? it if you want to take that, I'll give that one to you.
    Anyway,
    Oceanic wrote: »
    What I had meant to had said was.....

    Ol' wtf.pngHEAD ASS ? ....
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    bambu wrote: »
    Tough talk from a ? with no argument.......


    BOL.. What are you talking about? My arguments have made short work out of your creationist b.s. That's why you're leaving now to come back later.
    bambu wrote: »
    You weren't so tough when you tried to defend your weak ass position.........

    I was calling out your position, you claiming that drosophila is a species. You were wrong. Drosophila is a genus. I made a mistake on the other first half but ultimately, that post put you in your place, as have my others. Now stop wasting time and go clean up your arguments so you can come back and represent for the little boys and girls on the concrete floors
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • bambu
    bambu Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    Oceanic wrote: »
    I made a mistake on the other first half but.......
    Oceanic wrote: »
    What I meant to say was.......
    Oceanic wrote: »
    I was calling out your position, you claiming that drosophila is a species. You were wrong. Drosophila is a genus.

    I never said Drosophila was not a genus......
    Bambu wrote: »
    In biological nomenclature, a type species is the species to which the name of a genus is permanently linked; it is the species that contains the biological type specimen(s) of the taxon......

    Therefore all fruit fly species are named Drosophila.......

    bambu wrote: »
    Exhibit C.....

    SPECIES / SPECIMEN

    Drosophila melanogaster

    Drosophila funebris

    Drosophila busckii

    Drosophila confertidentata

    or......

    D. linearidentata

    D. neobusckii

    Ect....

    The type species permanently attaches a genus to its formal name (its generic name) by providing just one species within that genus to which the genus is permanently linked (i.e. the genus must include that species if it is to bear the name). The species name in turn is fixed, in theory, to a type specimen.

    I know you like fantasia2.png


    ? take your L and stop trying to make ? up.......

    flabbynsick.png Fix yourself up playboy, you out here all flabby and sickpachah1.png



    tumblr_lti25jO7Kq1qkfq8lo2_500.gif
  • whar
    whar Members Posts: 347 ✭✭✭
    bambu wrote: »
    Stupid ? ....


    wolf: species: canis lupus
    domestic dog: species: Canis lupus: subspecies: Canis lupus familiaris


    Drosophila mojavensis species: Drosophila
    Drosophila arizonae species: Drosophila



    In both examples there is only one species........

    Smart/Dumb ? ......

    In the first example there is one species. In the second there is two. Mojavensis and arizonae are two different species within the Genus Drosophilia.

  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    THREAD SUMMARY
    bambu wrote: »
    The experiment began with two sub-species, Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae.......
    bambu wrote: »
    But...But.. I meant to say...
    bambu wrote: »
    mojavensis: species: Drosophila

    arizonae: species: Drosophila
    bambu wrote: »
    Drosophila mojavensis species: Drosophila
    Drosophila arizonae species: Drosophila


    In both examples there is only one species........
    bambu wrote: »
    Umm.. Uhh.. But....
    bambu wrote: »
    I never said Drosophila was not a genus......
    Oceanic wrote: »
    blog-shaq-face%255B1%255D%255B8%255D.jpg
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    bambu wrote: »
    you claimed that goose bumps were a "relic"....

    Which has since been established as nonsense......
    Oceanic wrote: »
    Vestigiality does not necessarily imply that the structure, or ? , is completely useless. The point of vestigiality is that the structure, or ? , has lost a purpose. What is the reason for this loss? Evolution, of course.

    Opponents of evolution always raise the same argument when vestigial traits are cited as evidence for evolution. "The features are not useless," they say. "They are either useful for something, or we haven't yet discovered what they're for." They claim, in other words, that a trait can't be vestigial if it still has a function, or a function yet to be found.

    But this rejoinder misses the point. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that vestigial characters have no function.

    http://jerrycoyne.uchicago.edu/excerpt.html

    Darwin says
    Darwin wrote: »
    An ? , serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other.
    Darwin wrote: »
    An ? rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose.
    Darwin wrote: »
    Again, an ? may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing ? or lung.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#vestiges_functional
    bambu wrote: »
    Uhhh... I'll be back
    Oceanic wrote: »
    blog-shaq-face%255B1%255D%255B8%255D.jpg
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    bambu wrote: »
    28400e4741cfb1d1127fad7b6d71.jpg
    Oceanic wrote: »
    all humans are one species.
    bambu wrote: »
    That's not what your European counterparts think.........

    "Fossil records, archaeology, and genetic DNA studies of the living races support Charles
    Darwin’s insight that we evolved in Africa. Humans then spread to the Middle East, Europe, Asia,
    Australia, and then to the Americas. As humans left Africa, their bodies, brains and behavior changed. To
    deal with the colder winters and scarcer food supply of Europe and Northeast Asia, the Oriental and
    White races moved away from an r-strategy toward the K-strategy. This meant more parenting and social
    organization, which required a larger brain size and a higher IQ."
    Oceanic wrote: »
    You're quoting from a book that has been highly criticized by (black and white) experts of their fields. I've told you this before.

    Rushton has been criticised for his use of r/K selection theory to explain alleged differences between his identified "races". Evolutionary Biologist Joseph L. Graves (2002) notes that the theory had long lacked support and had been invalidated before Rushton's book was written. According to Graves, Rushton's claim (still present in the third edition and without any acknowledgement of counter-evidence), that r- and K-life history theory was 'a basic principle of modern evolutionary theory' "supports my view that Rushton does not understand life history theory. Thus he employs it incorrectly and through this error his work serves racist ideological agendas."[11]

    Psychologist David P. Barash notes that r- and K-selection may have some validity when considering the so-called demographic transition, whereby economic development characteristically leads to reduced family size and other K traits. "But this is a pan-human phenomenon, a flexible, adaptive response to changed environmental conditions of lowered mortality and greater pay-off attendant upon concentrating parental investment in a smaller number of offspring [...] Rushton wields r- and K-selection as a Procrustean bed, doing what he can to make the available data fit[...]. Bad science and virulent racial prejudice drip like pus from nearly every page of this despicable book."[16]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior#r.2FK_theory_as_an_explanation_for_the_data

    Race, Evolution, and Behavior has been cited as an example of the Pioneer Fund's activities in promoting "Scientific racism". Valencia notes that many of the supportive comments for the book come from Pioneer grantees like Rushton himself, and that a 100,000 copy print-run of the third edition was financed by Pioneer.[7] The book is cited by psychologist William H. Tucker as an example of the Pioneer Fund's continued role "to subsidize the creation and distribution of literature to support racial superiority and racial purity." The mass distribution of the abridged third edition he described as part of a "public relations effort", and "the latest attempt to convince the nation of 'the completely different nature' of blacks and whites." He notes that bulk rates were offered "for distribution to media figures, especially columnists who write on race issues".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior

    DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity.
    http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml
    bambu wrote: »
    Uhhh....
    Oceanic wrote: »
    blog-shaq-face%255B1%255D%255B8%255D.jpg
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    bambu wrote: »
    A lot of ? that support evolution are not familiar enough with the theory to hold a conversation on it.....
    Oceanic wrote: »
    If it has a bill and webbed feet like a duck, lays eggs like a bird or a reptile but also produces milk and has a coat of fur like a mammal, what could the genetics of the duck-billed platypus possibly be like? Well, just as peculiar - an amalgam of genes reflecting significant branching and transitions in evolution.

    "What is unique about the platypus is that it has retained a large overlap between two very different classifications, while later mammals lost the features of reptiles," Warren said in an interview.

    The project, involving scientists from eight countries, was primarily financed by the National Human Genome Research Institute in the United States. Its director, Francis Collins, said, "As weird as this animal looks, its genome sequence is priceless for understanding how mammalian biological processes evolved."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/health/08iht-platypus.1.12686531.html?_r=0


    However, the University of Arizona researchers believe the insects are in the early stages of diverging into separate species.

    The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.

    When the two groups can no longer interbreed, they cease exchanging genes and eventually go their own evolutionary ways becoming separate species.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm


    Time%20Scale.jpg
    bambu wrote: »
    Uhh....
    Oceanic wrote: »
    blog-shaq-face%255B1%255D%255B8%255D.jpg
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @bambu
    Like I said, rethink your ? and come back. You get one more try. Peace.
  • bambu
    bambu Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    @Oceanic.....

    Ya'll ? is stupid......

    Regardless of the terminology in your fruit fly experiment.......

    There was no observance of a new species or evolution........

    There is evidence of genetic variations between humans of different continental origins(race).........

    Darwinism is the foundation of racism......

    Exhibit A:
    "Caucasian races have beaten (other races) in the struggle for existence … an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."

    "the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."

    Many years later.......
    Oceanic wrote: »
    My theory is that whites will become extinct over time.


    Respect the architect, never test the Elohim........


    6bb61e3b7bce0931da574d19d1d82c88-1624.jpg
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    bambu wrote: »

    Darwinism is the foundation of racism......

    Exhibit A:
    "Caucasian races have beaten (other races) in the struggle for existence … an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."

    "the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."

    ^^^ Incorrect information
    Darwin wrote: »
    Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded ? with whom I happened once to be intimate
    The Descent of Man, Chapter VII
    Darwin wrote: »
    Fitz-Roy’s temper was a most unfortunate one. It was usually worst in the early morning, and with his eagle eye he could generally detect something amiss about the ship, and was then unsparing in his blame. He was very kind to me, but was a man very difficult to live with on the intimate terms which necessarily followed from our messing by ourselves in the same cabin. We had several quarrels; for instance, early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered “No.” I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything? This made him excessively angry, and he said that as I doubted his word we could not live any longer together. I thought that I should have been compelled to leave the ship; but as soon as the news spread, which it did quickly, as the captain sent for the first lieutenant to assuage his anger by abusing me, I was deeply gratified by receiving an invitation from all the gun-room officers to mess with them. But after a few hours Fitz-Roy showed his usual magnanimity by sending an officer to me with an apology and a request that I would continue to live with him.
    The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin


    It is astonishingly easy to quote mine phrases out of context by latching on to terms such as “Race” and “Savage” that he uses at various points in his writings, but what you are never told is the precise meaning of such terms at that time. Nor are you shown the bigger picture and how quote mined phrases have been lifted out of context to twist their meaning 180 degrees.

    The true racists of Darwin s time were the religious creationists. They believed that other races had been separately created and hence were inferior and not related in any way. In stark contrast, it was evolution that clearly demonstrated this to be false and that we are in fact all related, and while there might be minor variations of appearance, we all have a common ancestry and all have the same heart and mind.

    Evolution itself is also asserted to be a racist belief. However, the truth is that in stark contrast to the existing views on race at that time, Darwin showed that:
    •People cannot be classified as different species
    •All races are related and have a common ancestry
    •All people come from “savage” origins
    •The different races have much more in common than was widely believed
    •The mental capabilities of all races are virtually the same and there is greater variation within races than between races
    •Different races of people can interbreed and there is no concern for ill effects
    •Culture, not biology, accounted for the greatest differences between the races
    •Races are not distinct, but rather they blend together

    Natural Selection at one stroke wipes out all justifications for racism, and so the claim that it is racist is utterly absurd. In his second great book, The Descent of Man, Darwin outlines all of the various ideas about race that existed at that time, and explains the details of the various ideas, and then proceeds to refute it all. Unfortunately, because of his writing style, it is easy for many to quote-mine stuff out of context and thus completely distort his views. Read it all and you quite clearly find a man who views all of humanity as essentially equal.

    http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/darwin-racist-natural-selection-racist-ideology-nope/
  • bambu
    bambu Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    bambu wrote: »
    1110-nat-subDNAb.gif


    DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.
    http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml


  • bambu
    bambu Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Oceanic wrote: »
    bambu wrote: »

    Darwinism is the foundation of racism......

    Exhibit A:
    "Caucasian races have beaten (other races) in the struggle for existence … an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."

    "the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."

    ^^^ Incorrect information

    ? please.....
    The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.

    http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-13230



  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    bambu wrote: »
    "Caucasian races have beaten (other races) in the struggle for existence "

    And you misquoted Darwin here: ^^^
    The unedited quote is as follows:
    Darwin wrote: »
    The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence.

    You are taking Darwin's quote out of context. Is it not true that more civilized races of people with advanced technology and knowledge are propelled past those without?

    Darwin is not saying that one race is inherently superior than another. He believed in racial equality. Reference the quote below for verification.

    Darwin wrote: »
    Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded ? with whom I happened once to be intimate
    The Descent of Man, Chapter VII

    Basically, he is saying the same as this:



    DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.
    http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml

  • bambu
    bambu Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    Oceanic wrote: »
    ^^^ Incorrect information



    ? please.....
    The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.

    Direct link.....

    http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-13230




  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    bambu wrote: »
    "Caucasian races have beaten (other races) in the struggle for existence "

    And you misquoted Darwin here: ^^^
    The unedited quote is as follows:
    Darwin wrote: »
    The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence.

    You are taking Darwin's quote out of context. Is it not true that more civilized races of people with advanced technology and knowledge are propelled past those without?

    Darwin is not saying that one race is inherently superior than another. He believed in racial equality. Reference the quote below for verification.

    Darwin wrote: »
    Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded ? with whom I happened once to be intimate
    The Descent of Man, Chapter VII

    Basically, he is saying the same as this:



    DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other.
    http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/minorities.shtml

  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    ^^^ Direct link
  • bambu
    bambu Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The point which you raise on intelligent Design has perplexed me beyond measure; & has been ably discussed by Prof. Asa Gray, with whom I have had much correspondence on the subject.—I am in a complete jumble on the point. One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed

  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    Yeah, Darwin was a Christian until later on in his life at which point he gave up Christianity and became agnostic.

    In 1879 John Fordyce wrote asking if Darwin believed in ? , and if theism and evolution were compatible. Darwin replied that a man "can be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist", citing Charles Kingsley and Asa Gray as examples, and for himself, "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a ? .— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin#Agnosticism
  • bambu
    bambu Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited December 2012
    Darwin wrote: »
    The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named....

    Basically, he is saying the same as this:

    1110-nat-subDNAb.gif
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    bambu wrote: »
    And I object to @Janklow judging......
    He caught a hot dose of ether earlier in this thread.......
    oh, no, here we go with the feelings again. but that does bring me to this point:
    bambu wrote: »
    I will go back to schooling your ass shortly...........
    in THIS thread? nope.
This discussion has been closed.