The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Zombrex · 05-03-2013 12:56AM

J C wrote: »

To repeat ... this flatfish issue is a 'red herring' and you are just arguing about semantics here ...
You asked for an example of a flatfish that wasn't produced through dimorphic mutagenesis ... and I cited the Ray as a Directly Created Demersal Benthic groundfish

I didn't ask for that snookums. I asked for the ancestor of flatfish. Not groundfish, flatfish.

You claimed that flatfish evolved from Rays. Now you are saying Stringrays evolved from Rays, and flatfish evolved from flatfish.

We can't help wondering do you know anything about what you are talking about when you suddenly change the type of fish you are talking about mid-discussion.

I hope you can understand that honey bear.

J C wrote: »

The common name 'flatfish' is generally used to encompass the dimorphic varieties of bony fish ... but Rays occupy the same ecological niche on the sea bottom as the bony flatfish which have suffered dimorphic mutagenesis.

So because Ray's live on the sea floor you mistakenly thought they were flatfish?

But if you were mistaken about Ray's being flatfish how can you claim that flatfish evolved from Rays? Surely you must know what a flatfish is in the first place to say it evolved from something?

Can you see the problem snookums? You claim to explain to us how flatfish evolved, but then it turns out that you were not talking about flatfish, you are talking about Rays? But if you don't even know what flatfish are, how can you be an authority on how they evolved?

Or could it be, my little gum drop pie, that you were in fact just making all of that up, and didn't realize your mistake until it was too late?

The Concrete Doctor · 05-03-2013 01:29AM

Zombrex wrote: »

I didn't ask for that snookums. I asked for the ancestor of flatfish. Not groundfish, flatfish.

You claimed that flatfish evolved from Rays. Now you are saying Stringrays evolved from Rays, and flatfish evolved from flatfish.

We can't help wondering do you know anything about what you are talking about when you suddenly change the type of fish you are talking about mid-discussion.

I hope you can understand that honey bear.

So because Ray's live on the sea floor you mistakenly thought they were flatfish?

But if you were mistaken about Ray's being flatfish how can you claim that flatfish evolved from Rays? Surely you must know what a flatfish is in the first place to say it evolved from something?

Can you see the problem snookums? You claim to explain to us how flatfish evolved, but then it turns out that you were not talking about flatfish, you are talking about Rays? But if you don't even know what flatfish are, how can you be an authority on how they evolved?

Or could it be, my little gum drop pie, that you were in fact just making all of that up, and didn't realize your mistake until it was too late?

Are "Rays" the plural of Ray?
Is this part of "the evolution of language"? or should that be "the creation of language?"

Morbert · 05-03-2013 05:11AM

So I thought I'd see what's happening in the troll pit. Anything interesting or insightfu...

J C wrote:

A Ray is a Flatfish

welp, goodbye everyone.

J C · 05-03-2013 09:12AM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

JC you know that this is an incredible simplification of a very, very long protracted process.
Your "evidence" is what, the bible???

My evidence is what we observe in the physical world ... never an increase in complex functional specificity without an input of intelligence ... and billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth - indicative of a worldwide flood extinction event.

J C · 05-03-2013 09:25AM

Zombrex wrote: »

I didn't ask for that snookums. I asked for the ancestor of flatfish. Not groundfish, flatfish.

You claimed that flatfish evolved from Rays. Now you are saying Stringrays evolved from Rays, and flatfish evolved from flatfish.

We can't help wondering do you know anything about what you are talking about when you suddenly change the type of fish you are talking about mid-discussion.

I hope you can understand that honey bear.

So because Ray's live on the sea floor you mistakenly thought they were flatfish?

But if you were mistaken about Ray's being flatfish how can you claim that flatfish evolved from Rays? Surely you must know what a flatfish is in the first place to say it evolved from something?

Can you see the problem snookums? You claim to explain to us how flatfish evolved, but then it turns out that you were not talking about flatfish, you are talking about Rays? But if you don't even know what flatfish are, how can you be an authority on how they evolved?

Or could it be, my little gum drop pie, that you were in fact just making all of that up, and didn't realize your mistake until it was too late?

The term 'flatfish' is just a common name for fish with a flat profile - it isn't a scientifically precise term ... the proper collective scientific descriptor for the bony 'flatfish' that you were talking about is Demersal Benthic groundfish with dimorphic mutagenesis.
The proper collective scientific descriptor for cartilaginous 'flatfish', like Stingrays is Demersal Benthic groundfish without dimorphic mutagenesis.
... get with the programme ... and use precise scientific descriptions if you want to argue scientifically about this issue!!!
... otherwise you're arguments are little better than those of a fishmonger ... arguing over whether he should still be called a 'fishmonger' when he is selling crabs!!!:)

... all your unscientific nit picking over the past few pages hasn't progressed the argument in favour of evolution one iota ... and this is just a further example of the endless adhominism that ye guys engage in ... if you perceive any weakness in somebody (however ephimeral) ye start a 'feeding frenzy' focussed on the person ... and not the substantive position they are enunciating.
Ye try to demolish the person ... and not their substantive argument.
My substantive argument was that mutagenic dimorphism is a damaging form of 'evolution' ... and therefore not evidence of progress towards increasing perfection ... which would be required if 'Pondkind to Mankind' evolution ever occurred.
Instead of focussing on this substantive point ... ye decided to try and destroy my credibility instead ... it was just a pity that you ended up being hoist on your own petard ... as you tried to destroy my scientific credibility by arguing with the scientifically imprecise language of a fishmonger!!

Brian Shanahan · 05-03-2013 12:40PM

J C wrote: »

May the Klingons be with you!!!:)

Did you follow the link and view the episode? It does show you how stupid your premise is.

The Concrete Doctor · 05-03-2013 03:01PM

J C wrote: »

My evidence is what we observe in the physical world ... never an increase in complex functional specificity without an input of intelligence ... and billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth - indicative of a worldwide flood extinction event.

NO JC, As discussed so many times, you are wrong in every rational thinking person's mind, including the vast majority of respected experts in the field. Your arguments do not stack up, except in your head.

doctoremma · 05-03-2013 03:28PM

J C wrote: »

The term 'flatfish' is just a common name for fish with a flat profile

No it isn't.

"Flat fish" might be acceptable, but not "flatfish".

Zombrex · 05-03-2013 03:43PM

J C wrote: »

The term 'flatfish' is just a common name for fish with a flat profile

Ah snookums, no it isn't. Flatfish is a type of fish, and has been used as a term for these types of fish for centuries by fishermen. Go to any fishing site and they will explain to you what flatfish are.

J C wrote: »

... all your unscientific nit picking over the past few pages hasn't progressed the argument in favour of evolution one iota ... and this is just a further example of the endless adhominism that ye guys engage in ... if you perceive any weakness in somebody (however ephimeral) ye start a 'feeding frenzy' focussed on the person ... and not the substantive position they are enunciating.

Oh snuggle pie, are we hurting your feelings by pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about?

J C wrote: »

Ye try to demolish the person ... and not their substantive argument.

But tiddly winks, your argument was that flatfish evolved from rays. Given that they are two completely different types of fish that argument demolishes itself.

J C wrote: »

Instead of focussing on this substantive point ... ye decided to try and destroy my credibility instead

Oh silly pie, you don't have an credibility on this thread. You made the claim that flatfish evolved by a process of "damage" to "ordinary" fish, and when you were asked for details it emerged, surprisingly, that you didn't know what you were talking about. You didn't even know what flatfish were.

And honey bunny lets be honest, this always happens when you are asked for details. You claimed triceritops was a type of Rhino, but when we discussed the details it emerged that Rhinos have 4 legs each with 3 toes, a distinguishing characteristic of the mammal group that rhinos belong to where as triceritops has 5 toes on 2 of its legs and 4 on its others. It is a completely different kind of animal.

Any time anyone who knows anything about biology examines your claims they come up being nonsense.

I'm sorry this hurts your feelings snuggle bunny, but I'm sure you are comforted by the unending love of Christ that envelops you daily.

J C · 05-03-2013 07:38PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Did you follow the link and view the episode? It does show you how stupid your premise is.

It's 'boldly going where no Evolutionist has gone before' ... and is at the cutting edge of science!!

Devolution is an objectively verifiable phenomenon ... indeed all 'evolution' via mutagenesis is actually devolution.

I like the line from the video "Poor guy ... not only is he turning into an animal ... he is turning into one that sucks"!!!
The nightmare of Evolutionists everywhere ... no doubt!!!:eek::D

I looked at the video right through BTW ... its priceless ... and is only beaten for fun and 'one liners', by going along as a Creationist ... on an Evolutionist Geology day trip!!!

J C · 05-03-2013 07:42PM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

NO JC, As discussed so many times, you are wrong in every rational thinking person's mind, including the vast majority of respected experts in the field. Your arguments do not stack up, except in your head.

Every sane Scotsman knows ... and all that.
You're long on hype ... but very short on evidence!!!

J C · 05-03-2013 09:04PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Ah snookums, no it isn't. Flatfish is a type of fish, and has been used as a term for these types of fish for centuries by fishermen. Go to any fishing site and they will explain to you what flatfish are.

That's precisely my point ... you're using the scientifically imprecise language of the fishmonger ... and then berating me for being 'unscientific' ... and anything else that you can dredge up, to call me.

... please get with the programme ... and use precise scientific descriptions if you want to argue scientifically about this issue!!!
... otherwise you're arguments are little better than those of a fishmonger ... arguing over whether he should still be called a 'fishmonger' whether he is selling crabs ... or is infested by them!!!:)

Zombrex wrote: »

Oh snuggle pie, are we hurting your feelings by pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about?

If you were doing that at self, you might have a point!!!
... and my feelings are much more robust than that ... I have challenged and defeated vastly more powerful spiritual entities than you could even imagine ... so I'm made of very tough stuff!!!
... However I must point out that the ad hominisms that are routinely deployed against me are a nasty and lazy way of debating. It is nasty as it targets the person and personality of your opponent instead of their ideas. It is lazy because it involves little more than throwing plenty of verbal 'mud' in the hope that some of it will stick ... or that casual observers will conclude that 'there is no smoke without fire' when it comes to the terrible things you guys say about me.
... and finally, it's a logical fallacy ... because it doesn't actually matter if I am the greatest moron the world has ever known or if I never spent a day at school ... if I am making an argument that goes to the core of the issue under discussion and you don't have an answer to the argument ... then you have lost the debate ... irrespective of my intellectual or personal capacity.

Zombrex wrote: »

But tiddly winks, your argument was that flatfish evolved from rays. Given that they are two completely different types of fish that argument demolishes itself.

That wasn't my argument ... and I challenge you to provide a quote from me to prove this.

Zombrex wrote: »

Oh silly pie, you don't have an credibility on this thread. You made the claim that flatfish evolved by a process of "damage" to "ordinary" fish, and when you were asked for details it emerged, surprisingly, that you didn't know what you were talking about. You didn't even know what flatfish were.

More ad hominems focussed on my person and my abilities ... but no engagement with the substance of my argument or ideas.

Zombrex wrote: »

And honey bunny lets be honest, this always happens when you are asked for details. You claimed triceritops was a type of Rhino, but when we discussed the details it emerged that Rhinos have 4 legs each with 3 toes, a distinguishing characteristic of the mammal group that rhinos belong to where as triceritops has 5 toes on 2 of its legs and 4 on its others. It is a completely different kind of animal.

Like I pointed out at the time, the Triceratops is both an odd-toed ungulate Perissodactyl (like modern Rhinos) and an even-toed ungulate Artiodactyl ... so it had the genetic diversity of two mammalian orders, no less ... and the modern Rhino has lost it.

Zombrex wrote: »

Any time anyone who knows anything about biology examines your claims they come up being nonsense.

... only in your dreams!!!!:)

Zombrex wrote: »

I'm sorry this hurts your feelings snuggle bunny, but I'm sure you are comforted by the unending love of Christ that envelops you daily.

Like I have said it has no effect on my feelings ... because I know your ad hominisms about me to be untrue.
... and you are correct that I am indeed greatly comforted by the unending love of Jesus Christ that envelops me daily.:)

With love .

J C

J C · 05-03-2013 09:27PM

doctoremma wrote: »

No it isn't.

"Flat fish" might be acceptable, but not "flatfish".

Ah I see 'Flat fish' ... but not 'flatfish' ... how about 'Flatfish'?
... or fish and chips!!!

... this is becoming like a Monty Python sketch ... like the priceless one in 'The Life of Brian' where the only guy who was behaving individually was claiming to not be an individual.

... how about using proper and precise scientific terminology instead, Emma?
... especially if ye are going to engage in questioning my scientific credibility?

The proper collective scientific descriptor for the bony 'flatfish', that Zombrex has been making such a fuss over, is Demersal Benthic groundfish with dimorphic mutagenesis.
The proper collective scientific descriptor for cartilaginous 'flatfish', like Stingrays is Demersal Benthic groundfish without dimorphic mutagenesis.:)

Delirium · 05-03-2013 09:29PM

J C wrote: »

... how about using proper and precise scientific terminology instead?
... especially if ye are going to engage in questioning my scientific credibility?

The proper collective scientific descriptor for the bony 'flatfish' that Zombrex has been making such a fuss over is Demersal Benthic groundfish with dimorphic mutagenesis.
The proper collective scientific descriptor for cartilaginous 'flatfish', like Stingrays is Demersal Benthic groundfish without dimorphic mutagenesis.:)

so you'll be taking your own advice and dropping the talk about "Kinds"?

J C · 05-03-2013 10:01PM

koth wrote: »

so you'll be taking your own advice and dropping the talk about "Kinds"?

Kinds are indeed a scientifically valid ... and validatable form of nomenclature.
... so ... no I won't be 'dropping it'.:)

Masteroid · 05-03-2013 10:18PM

J C wrote: »

3. Damage causing dimorphic mutagenesis is consistent with the Direct Creation Hypothesis ... and provides no evidential support for anything. 'Big Picture' Evolution's requirement for increasing perfection that would have had to happen, if Pondkind to Mankind Evolution ever occurred.

FYP.

Some apes have a strong resemblance to some humans - were they too created in the image of God?

I mean, when God created the Orang-Utan He must have thought something along the lines of, 'That looks like a hairy version of Me.'

If 'Damage causing dimorphic mutagenesis is consistent with the Direct Creation Hypothesis' is true then why do you cling on to the notion that man was a directly created being since genetic damage causing dimorphic mutagenesis of an ape could be responsible for the appearance of humans on earth in the same way as it is responsible for the appearance of flatfish in the sea?

If God created the means by which dimorphic mutagenesis can occur and created just a single organism on which it could act then the assumption that He deliberately and separately created each genus of plant and animal can be safely abandoned.

If you truly accept the truth of the biology you claim to understand and accept that what you call 'devolution' biologists call 'evolution' then you can move from a 'theistic' position to a 'deistic' one without compromising the science that you accept as being valid.

If you were to say that God created a living organism with the capability to adapt in response to environmental cues and that God at the same time created the mechanisms that allow dimorphic mutagenesis to occur, then science would not be in a position to argue with you in any ontological way.

I find it to be paradoxical when you claim that NS ensures that the genetice information relating to the eyes of hawks remains undamaged but view evolution as 'declination of genetic information'.

Your beliefs are at odds with your beliefs. Why can't the same process you apply to the eyes of hawks, noses of dogs and shapes of fish apply accross the board.

Look, evolution gave us the wolf and man Intelligently re-Designed it to create a dog that has trouble breathing. Why is that? How come we can't gentically engineer the shih tzu so that it doesn't have all the health problems that they are currently at the mercy of?

You see? Intelligent Design simply does not work.

One more thing in relation to the flatfish. They undergo a metamorphosis in order to become adults, like butterflies. Juvenile flatfish have the anatomy of a normal fish complete with swim-bladder. When they are at this stage, the 'sledgehammer blow to their DNA' is not manifest.

No, it would appear that the flatfish has new genetic information superimposed onto its genome that 'kicks in' when the fish has developed to a certain stage. It's not broken CFSI at all, it's extra CFSI that results in a new survival strategy.

Anyway, if you can say that the flatfish is a result of damaged DNA then the same argument can be applied to caterpillars except that the change is more profound for a caterpillar.

Tadpoles too.

There are many creatures that change their bodyplan, environment, behaviour and diet - are they all a result of broken CSFI?

Or are they all simply a product of chance, change and a great deal of time?

You accept that random forces can produce new species (flatfish) so why won't you accept that they do?

lmaopml · 05-03-2013 10:25PM

J C wrote: »

Kinds are indeed a scientifically valid ... and validatable form of nomenclature.
... so ... no I won't be 'dropping it'.:)

I'm sorry, but this is possibly the strangest thread ever with all the people arguing over flatfish as opposed to flat fish :pac: for ten odd years - where would you get it? Ten years arguing...

.....silly billy, snuggle bunny, honey wunny, snookum wookum :pac: - and clips from star trek to boot - I have to agree that sometimes it IS comedy gold.

Long live the thread - because you're worth it.

maguffin · 05-03-2013 10:26PM

J C wrote: »

Kinds are indeed a scientifically valid ... and validatable form of nomenclature.
... so ... no I won't be 'dropping it'.:)

'Kind' as an adjective only implies choice of more than one thing....it does not scientifically define what the different choices are, and is therefore not a valid form of nomenclature. It also implies 'vagueness' in that the speaker is unsure as to what they are looking at......a little like you JC !!

Scientific Classification, or taxonomy, has seven divisions in the system: (1) Kingdom; (2) Phylum or Division; (3) Class; (4) Order; (5) Family; (6) Genus; (7) Species.
No mention of 'Kind'
For example, the full classification for a lion would be: Kingdom, Animalia (animals); Phylum, Chordata (vertebrate animals); Class, Mammalia (mammals); Order, Carnivora (meat eaters); Family, Felidae (all cats); Genus, Panthera (great cats); Species, leo (lions).

J C · 05-03-2013 10:35PM

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this is possibly the strangest thread ever with all the people arguing over flatfish as opposed to flat fish :pac: for ten odd years - where would you get it? Ten years arguing...

.....silly billy, snuggle bunny, honey wunny, snookum wookum :pac: - and clips from star trek to boot - I have to agree that sometimes it IS comedy gold.

Long live the thread - because you're worth it.

We all need a good laugh.
The thread does sometimes lurch between the sublime and the ridiculous allright.
... a bit like the history of Evolution.

... and Zombrex seems to be going through a Russel Brand kind of 'bookie wookie' phase.:D

darjeeling · 05-03-2013 10:36PM

J C wrote: »

... how about using proper and precise scientific terminology instead, Emma?
... especially if ye are going to engage in questioning my scientific credibility?

The proper collective scientific descriptor for the bony 'flatfish', that Zombrex has been making such a fuss over, is Demersal Benthic groundfish with dimorphic mutagenesis.
The proper collective scientific descriptor for cartilaginous 'flatfish', like Stingrays is Demersal Benthic groundfish without dimorphic mutagenesis.:)

J C wrote: »

the proper scientific descriptor [...] is Demersal Benthic groundfish with dimorphic mutagenesis

Ha ha, very good!!! :pac:

J C wrote: »

how about using proper and precise scientific terminology instead?

J C wrote: »

dimorphic mutagenesis

PARP PARP!!! TOOT TOOT!!! :pac:!! :pac:!!!! :pac:!!!!!!!!!!!
clown-car-istockphoto.com.jpg

J C · 05-03-2013 10:41PM

maguffin wrote: »

'Kind' as an adjective only implies choice of more than one thing....it does not scientifically define what the different choices are, and is therefore not a valid form of nomenclature. It also implies 'vagueness' in that the speaker is unsure as to what they are looking at......a little like you JC !!

Scientific Classification, or taxonomy, has seven divisions in the system: (1) Kingdom; (2) Phylum or Division; (3) Class; (4) Order; (5) Family; (6) Genus; (7) Species.
No mention of 'Kind'
For example, the full classification for a lion would be: Kingdom, Animalia (animals); Phylum, Chordata (vertebrate animals); Class, Mammalia (mammals); Order, Carnivora (meat eaters); Family, Felidae (all cats); Genus, Panthera (great cats); Species, leo (lions).

It is thought that the Kind is Felidae ... the Cat Kind.:)

J C · 05-03-2013 10:43PM

darjeeling wrote: »

Ha ha, very good!!! :pac:

PARP PARP!!! TOOT TOOT!!! :pac:!! :pac:!!!! :pac:!!!!!!!!!!!

Mbeep ... mbeep!!!:)

Delirium · 05-03-2013 10:47PM

J C wrote: »

It is thought that the Kind is Felidae ... the Cat Kind.:)

It's thought that the Kind is? That's not a very confident response. If Kinds are scientific as you claim, you should have books/sites/journals documenting all Kinds to the finest of details.

J C · 05-03-2013 10:53PM

koth wrote: »

It's thought that the Kind is? That's not a very confident response. If Kinds are scientific as you claim, you should have books/sites/journals documenting all Kinds to the finest of details.

That is the difference between Creation Scientists and 'others' that shall be nameless ... we underclaim and over-deliver.
Its something to do with our humility ... I guess.

Delirium · 05-03-2013 10:58PM

J C wrote: »

That is the difference between Creation Scientists and 'others' that shall be nameless ... we underclaim and over-deliver.
Its something to do with our humility ... I guess.

You mean those pesky scientists with their facts, data and evidence? :rolleyes:

And your own creationist stance is the furthest from humility one could ever get. An all-powerful creator manufactures an entire reality for one species on a speck of a rock in a vast universe.

J C · 05-03-2013 11:01PM

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this is possibly the strangest thread ever with all the people arguing over flatfish as opposed to flat fish :pac: for ten odd years - where would you get it? Ten years arguing...

Please don't laugh ...
Whole books have been written by Evolutionists with less substance to them than the Flatfish/Flat fish point!!:pac:

lmaopml · 05-03-2013 11:04PM

J C wrote: »

We all need a good laugh.
The thread does lurch between the sublime and the ridiculous alright.

... and Zombrex seems to be going through a Russel Brand kind of 'bookie wookie' phase.:D

J.C. I am not a 'Creationist' in the same sense as yourself, I'm sorry honey, but I'm not invested so much in that - with such vigour for the finer details of the bone structures etc. of 'flat fish' or 'flatfish', sledge hammers involved or no, tasty fish with a bong eye - I'm quite sure the fish monger would know what I was talking about should I say...

'A flat ray please, battered thanks'.

- but I do admire how you, all on your own, can incite such sheer scientific exuberance in Ireland from her educated people - where clearly Creationist Science is taking over, much like the dalicks pose a threat too.

J C · 05-03-2013 11:06PM

koth wrote: »

You mean those pesky scientists with their facts, data and evidence? :rolleyes:

I love and admire them all ... they do great work with real science that we all benefit from ... it's just when they start talking about being animals that suck ... that I just have to smile!!!:)
... or even break out in a full uninhibited belly laugh!!!:D

koth wrote: »

And your own creationist stance is the furthest from humility one could ever get. An all-powerful creator manufactures an entire reality for one species on a speck of a rock in a vast universe.

It logically beats the pants off the idea that the Universe manufactured itself from a speck of dust!!!

Delirium · 05-03-2013 11:09PM

J C wrote: »

I love and admire them all ... they do great work with real science that we all benefit from ... it's just when they start talking about being animals that suck ... that I just have to smile!!!:)
... or even break out in a full uninhibited belly laugh!!!:D

It logically beats the pants off the idea that the Universe manufactured itself from a speck of dust!!!

and you're entitled to that opinion, but sadly for you the science just isn't there to back up the claims of creationists.

J C · 05-03-2013 11:21PM

koth wrote: »

and you're entitled to that opinion, but sadly for you the science just isn't there to back up the claims of creationists.

How so?

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments