Dinosaurs

[Kdall]

Dawkins is saying precisely what I told you. He says the design is that of an idiot... poor design. He then goes on to credit our vision inspite of the design 'flaws' to evutionary processes.

As I said...evolutionists think poor design is evidence of evolution...and they think good design is evidence of evolution.

BTW... Dawkins made the argument many times that our eyes were poorly designed...Example: "@Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain.*He would laugh*at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light.*Yet this is exactly what happens*in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect,wired in backwards, with its write sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina, to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called “blind spot”) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light , instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires,presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion*(actually probably not much*but, still, it is the principle of the thing*that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!).

He's obviously right that are eyes are built backwards to an extent. As a result, sight is the result of a chemical reaction, instead of a mechanical one like our auditory system. Have you ever wondered why you react more quickly to sounds than sight despite the fact that light travels faster than sound? It's because our eye is designed......let's call it peculiarly

 

[6days]

Well yes, there are weasel species that get that big.

So... to be accurate you might have said that mammals have been found as big as some animals such as wolverine or otter from the weasel family.

 

[Alate_One]

He said it was a rhino. It isn't a rhino unless you wish hard enough.

Again. Irony meter.

If you actually compare them though . . .

And, yes, it isn't exactly like a stegosaurus, but it is evidence that tips in the favor of YEC you'd have to admit. So do you want to go through the list of all the reliefs and pictures of dino's and you can try to refute them one by one?

The other carvings nearby don't look like any recognizable animals, yet you want to claim they're some kind of field guide to animals?

Again, even if it WAS a stegosaurus, which the carving is the ONLY evidence of one, which is incredibly weak evidence. Where are the modern bones?

Have you looked at the evidence for the Paluxy tracks? or do you only look at one side like Kdall?

Evidence isn't of one side or another. It simply is. I'm fairly sure I've posted about those tracks before. They're dinosaur tracks, unless you know of people with three toes.

And the ones that don't have toes are very large for humans and appear to be produced by erosion from the three toed versions.

source

 

[Kdall]

So... to be accurate you might have said that mammals have been found as big as some animals such as wolverine or otter from the weasel family.

Wolverine is a bit large, but yes. As I said, I'll be sure to give a species specific example from now on as to avoid confusion

 

[6days]

Wolverine is a bit large, but yes. As I said, I'll be sure to give a species specific example from now on as to avoid confusion

Great... because if you say "no larger than a cat"... when in fact you are talking about a cougar, at best you are being deliberately ambiguous.

 

[6days]

Wow..the 1800's

If you have to go back that far to find people saying the apendex is useless then you have demonstrated that you don't have a point

You must have overlooked the article from Livescience from 2005?

 

[Jose Fly]

*'Physical Review Letters' published*"Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity." New Scientist' said these cells "act as optical fibres, and rather than being just a workaround to make up for the eye's peculiarities, they help filter and focus light, making images clearer and keeping colours sharp.".

Um, where do they say something like you claimed, i.e., that they "discovered purpose and design for our eyes"?

There are newer articles where even more design features are discussed in journals such as* 'Phys.Org' or an article from last year in *Nature titled "Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision,"*

Again, where in that paper do they say something like you claimed, i.e., that they "discovered purpose and design for our eyes"?

*Professor Erez Ribak at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, as saying:"The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today. Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes

Same thing.

The point Jose is that evolutionists claimed sloppy design was evidence FOR evolution...and they claim good design is evidence FOR evolution.*

*In other words....its not about the evidence...its about religion

Sorry, you've not demonstrated that at all.

Again...the evidence didn't matter... it was all about the evolutionists religion. No matter if they did or didn't. ... no matter if something is or isn't. .. evolutionists still believe.

What in the world are you talking about, "the evidence didn't matter"? It was the genetic.....wait for it.....evidence that settled the debate.

This is truly bizarre. You're citing a case where genetic evidence settled a scientific debate as an example of evidence not mattering to scientists? :idunno:

You have been wrong on it so (soooooo) often, and you still are.*

We went over this before and obviously you didn't learn or absorb a single thing. So I'm definitely not doing it again.....total waste of time.

 

[Jose Fly]

GO PICK UP A SCIENCE BOOK. I'm tired of explaining simple concepts to you people that are easily found

Yep, it's a waste of time to try and explain science to a group of people who have a vested interest in remaining ignorant of it.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, you are wrong. (as usual) What Dawkins actually said was: "Once again, send it back, it’s not just bad design, it’s the design of a complete idiot. Or is it? If it were, the eye would be terrible at seeing, and it is not. It is actually very good."

Oops! Busted. :ha:

is quote mining to produce a false statement part of your religion?

I can't count the number of times 6days has been caught quote mining. It's pathological.

 

[TracerBullet]

He's obviously right that are eyes are built backwards to an extent. As a result, sight is the result of a chemical reaction, instead of a mechanical one like our auditory system. Have you ever wondered why you react more quickly to sounds than sight despite the fact that light travels faster than sound? It's because our eye is designed......let's call it peculiarly

The structure of mammal eyes works very very well for nocturnal vision. The early mammals were nocturnal (all the better to avoid the dinosaurs) the result is called the nocturnal bottleneck

 

[Alate_One]

Great... because if you say "no larger a cat"... when in fact you are talking about a cougar, at best you are being deliberately ambiguous.

Really the argument over size is rather pointless. The main point is, mammals living alongside the dinosaurs did not look like modern mammals. A few had similar adaptations, but had very obviously distinct morphology, especially in dentition.

 

[The Barbarian]

You must have overlooked the article from Livescience from 2005?

So some "science magazine" had a writer who said so? How about something from the literature, by a real scientist?

And if this is the best you can do, isn't that an important clue for you?

 

[patrick jane]

Oops! Busted. :ha:



I can't count the number of times 6days has been caught quote mining. It's pathological.

what is quote mining ?

 

[6days]

So some "science magazine" had a writer who said so? How about something from the literature, by a real scientist?

And if this is the best you can do, isn't that an important clue for you?

What I had said is that evolutionists from the time of Darwin to current times have tried to tell us our appendix was "useless".
They were wrong in the 1800's... They are wrong today.

 

[6days]

The structure of mammal eyes works very very well for nocturnal vision.

The structure of mammal eyes were very well for whatever they were designed for.

 

[The Barbarian]

What I had said is that evolutionists from the time of Darwin to current times have tried to tell us our appendix was "useless".

But you can't find even one such statement in the literature, and so had to try to sneak a magazine article past us? That says a lot about your belief, doesn't it? As you learned, even Darwin pointed out that vestigial organs often evolve new functions.

An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus, in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules within the ovarium. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on the style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a rudimentary pistil, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed and is clothed in the usual manner with hairs, which serve to brush the pollen out of the surrounding and conjoined anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct one: in certain fishes the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Many similar instances could be given.
Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species Chapter XIII, Rudimentary Organs

It turns out, his prediction was correct. The human appendix, while no longer useful as a digestive organ, does provide a refuge for useful bacteria, and produces a few white blood cells.

They were wrong in the 1800's...

Darwin, as you now realize, predicted that vestigial organs would often retain some functions or evolve new ones.

Long before any creationists dreamed of that, and even before evolutionists discovered Darwin was right.

 

[6days]

But you can't find even one such statement in the literature,

As I said....
Evolutionists claimed our appendix was "useless" and a evidence for evolution.
I guess that means a usefull appendix should be evidence for our Creator.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
But you can't find even one such statement in the literature, and so had to try to sneak a magazine article past us? That says a lot about your belief, doesn't it? As you learned, even Darwin pointed out that vestigial organs often evolve new functions.

As I said....

Sorry, you're not scientific literature. No one can find those statements you're claiming. And given your excuses, it appears that you're realized that they don't exist.

Evolutionists claimed our appendix was "useless" and a evidence for evolution.

But you can't find any example in the scientific literature. And I showed you that even Darwin pointed out that vestigial organs are not necessarily useless. Why not come clean and admit that you made it up?

 

[6days]

Barbarian chuckles:
But you can't find even one such statement in the literature, and so had to try to sneak a magazine article past us?

6days chuckles.....
As I said....
Evolutionists used "useless" appendix as evidence of evolution.
Now that we know its useful, I guess we can consider that as evidence for our Creator.

 

[Kdall]

Great... because if you say "no larger than a cat"... when in fact you are talking about a cougar, at best you are being deliberately ambiguous.

As explained in my previous post, cat referred to wildcat species, which are significantly smaller than big cat species