The Privileged Planet

[Right Divider]

Ok. But if you believe that a horse can branch out to become wild a$$es, donkeys, zebras, mustangs, and so on then why not believe that horse-like animals in the fossil record, like Dinohippus, gave rise to horses? That seems like a logical next step doesn't it?

No, it does not. The actual evidence does not unequivocally support this interpretation. That pretty sequence of horse evolution that you're seen in books since you were a kid is simply not true (just like Haeckel's embryo pictures). What makes you think that Dinohippus is not a horse?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/fe/81/d8/fe81d8426f10676fb9249fe0230115db.jpg

http://img07.deviantart.net/85df/i/2010/248/5/0/dinohippus_mexicanus_by_karkemish00-d2y49u6.jpg

It sure looks like one. Even on that webpage that I found this, it is says "Dinohippus (Greek: Terrible horse),"

 

[Greg Jennings]

No, it does not. The actual evidence does not unequivocally support this interpretation. That pretty sequence of horse evolution that you're seen in books since you were a kid is simply not true (just like Haeckel's embryo pictures). What makes you think that Dinohippus is not a horse?

Well Dinohippus only really differed from modern horses in skull structure. However its cousins that lived alongside it, for example Hypohippus and nannihippus, were small and had three toes instead of one hoof, which is a larger difference that is more striking visually.
More here: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/horse/the-evolution-of-horses

Image showing how different prehistoric horses looked from the modern Equus:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vLbMuPkqGIw/R4iquH2UO9I/AAAAAAAABV4/-7pNyIZE0mM/s400/0008n034.jpg

On Haeckel, the drawings have long since been replaced in textbooks by actual pictures of the embryos. And they are almost exactly as he depicted them. Just as he drew, human embryos have pharyngeal slits (look like gills) as do embryos of most species

It sure looks like one. Even on that webpage that I found this, it is says "Dinohippus (Greek: Terrible horse),"

Don't put too much stock into what taxonomic names mean. If they were meant literally then T-Rex would've been a king and all dinosaurs would've been lizards (Greek means terrible lizard). The names are simple descriptions.

 

[6days]

On Haeckel, the drawings have long since been replaced in textbooks by actual pictures of the embryos. And they are almost exactly as he depicted them. Just as he drew, human embryos have pharyngeal slits (look like gills) as do embryos of most species.

Greg... sorry, but that is sadly funny that are trying to defend Haeckel's fraud. Zygotes are identical to begin with ..... but the theory of recapitulation has been rejected.

Humans embryo's have gill slits? One of the most popular and familiar pieces of evidence used to bolster the theory of evolution – reproduced for decades in most high school and college biology textbooks – is fraudulent, and has been known to be fraudulent for nearly 100 years. Most people have seen those drawings of developing human embryos next to developing animal embryos, and they look virtually indistinguishable. This has long been said to demonstrate that humans share a common ancestry with these animals and thus prove the theory of evolution.

These pictures were designed by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel. What few people know ....is that they were fakes. At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was exposed in “Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries,” a 1915 book... and yet almost 100 years later many textbooks still used his drawings as a 'proof' of evolution.

http://www.wnd.com/2001/07/9926/

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose Fly, you need to get on the horn and call the NIH right away, cuz on their website they're talking about genetic information!

They say "genes contain the information to make proteins". Therefore......?

 

[Right Divider]

They say "genes contain the information to make proteins". Therefore......?

Then they must know what genetic information is, right?

You see genetic means about genes. Genes are made up of DNA, which is coded information. Lots of it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then they must know what genetic information is, right?

You see genetic means about genes. Genes are made up of DNA, which is coded information. Lots of it.

I guess you once again forgot one of our earlier exchanges.

So since you brought this up again, does that mean you now have a definition of "genetic information" and a way to measure it?

 

[Right Divider]

I guess you once again forgot one of our earlier exchanges.

So since you brought this up again, does that mean you now have a definition of "genetic information" and a way to measure it?

Once there was NONE (in your "theory") and now there is LOTS OF IT (regardless of what definition you use). Where did it come from?

Please feel free to give us your vast scientific knowledge on the materialist process whereby CODED INFORMATION comes into existence where it did NOT exist before.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Jose Fly]

Once where was NONE (in your "theory") and now there is LOTS OF IT (regardless of what definition you use). Where did it come from?

Please feel free to give us your vast scientific knowledge on the materialist process whereby CODED INFORMATION comes into existence where it did NOT exist before.

Thanks for your time.

Again, you have forgotten another one of our earlier exchanges. As I explained to you before, the origin of the first life forms remains an unsolved mystery. Try and keep up.

 

[Right Divider]

Again, you have forgotten another one of our earlier exchanges. As I explained to you before, the origin of the first life forms remains an unsolved mystery. Try and keep up.

That is the classic "cop out". There is only ONE known source of coded information. That is from an intelligence being.

You claim that we cannot determine the origin of the first life forms and yet you are absolutely certain that all life is traced back to a single common ancestor (which 'just came to life' by another as yet unknown process). Your evidence is completely equivocal and actually more adequately interpreted from the creationist paradigm than your own materialist view.

You pretend like science is on your side. You do this by defining science to meet your need for an atheistic (or your newly found 'agnostic') explanation of all things. You pretend like science is a purely atheistic materialistic pursuit. But there are great many things that cannot be explained by matter and energy alone (like information). Science simply means KNOWLEDGE and that does NOT require an atheistic materialist view.

So keep up your bluff and bluster just like all of the "great" atheists do. I'm sure that Richard Dawkins will be very proud of you.

 

[Jose Fly]

There is only ONE known source of coded information. That is from an intelligence being.

The moon is made of cheese.

You claim that we cannot determine the origin of the first life forms

No, I said that we haven't yet figured it out, not that we can't. Your reading comprehension problems really make discussions with you frustrating.

Your evidence is completely equivocal and actually more adequately interpreted from the creationist paradigm than your own materialist view.

The moon is made of cheese.

You pretend like science is on your side. You do this by defining science to meet your need for an atheistic (or your newly found 'agnostic') explanation of all things. You pretend like science is a purely atheistic materialistic pursuit.

Yeah, that's right. I'm so powerful and influential, my preferences dictate the status of science for the rest of the world.

Science simply means KNOWLEDGE and that does NOT require an atheistic materialist view.

Exactly, which is why (as we covered before) the majority of "evolutionists" are theists, not atheists.

So keep up your bluff and bluster just like all of the "great" atheists do. I'm sure that Richard Dawkins will be very proud of you.

You have some real issues, don't you? What is it about atheists that makes you so angry?

 

[Right Divider]

The moon is made of cheese.

When Jose Fly cannot address something, he punts. Good job.

No, I said that we haven't yet figured it out, not that we can't. Your reading comprehension problems really make discussions with you frustrating.

Of course, this is the typical answer from a materialist. "We are so smart that someday we will figure it all out without the need for God."

The moon is made of cheese.

JF can't address a simple point, PUNTS AGAIN.

Yeah, that's right. I'm so powerful and influential, my preferences dictate the status of science for the rest of the world.

Look who has reading comprehension problems. I didn't say that YOU invented it, only that you agree with it.

Exactly, which is why (as we covered before) the majority of "evolutionists" are theists, not atheists.

You seen to have this fallacious idea about majorities. You must also think that science is about majority opinion too.

You have some real issues, don't you? What is it about atheists that makes you so angry?

I'm not angry.

 

[Jose Fly]

When Jose Fly cannot address something, he punts. Good job.

Once again we see how when your own behavior is reflected back at you, you completely miss the point.

I'm merely answering your empty assertions with the same. :duh:

Of course, this is the typical answer from a materialist. "We are so smart that someday we will figure it all out without the need for God."

Except that's not what I said. But then, your reading comprehension problems are well documented.

Look who has reading comprehension problems. I didn't say that YOU invented it, only that you agree with it.

Um....maybe you should start reading posts at least 3 times before responding. This is exactly what you said (emphasis mine): "You pretend like science is on your side. You do this by defining science to meet your need for an atheistic (or your newly found 'agnostic') explanation of all things."

If you think I'm the one who gets to define science, you have some really deep problems.

You seen to have this fallacious idea about majorities. You must also think that science is about majority opinion too.

Again you miss the point. If evolutionary biology is so atheistic, why are the vast majority of people who accept it as valid theistic?

I'm not angry.

You come across as someone who has some very deep issues with atheism and atheists...so much so that you project it onto conversations that are about other things (e.g., evolution). What is it about atheism that bothers you sooooo much?

 

[Right Divider]

Once again we see how when your own behavior is reflected back at you, you completely miss the point.

I'm merely answering your empty assertions with the same. :duh:

Nonsense. You believe that you are all knowing (or at least you come off that way to me).

My understanding of God comes of observing the world around me and coming to the legitimate conclusion that the world exhibits design and that this does NOT come naturally from the observed behavior of natural processes.

You continue to push the false notion that the only way that we can obtain knowledge (science) is by looking at matter and energy. But matter and energy do not explain where matter and energy come from, nor do they explain the existence of coded information like DNA. You continue to wave your hands that this doesn't matter, but it does.

Except that's not what I said. But then, your reading comprehension problems are well documented.

I didn't said that YOU said it, Read it AGAIN.

Of course, this is the typical answer from a materialist. "We are so smart that someday we will figure it all out without the need for God."

But this certainly sounds like you, in my OPINION.

Um....maybe you should start reading posts at least 3 times before responding. This is exactly what you said (emphasis mine): "You pretend like science is on your side. You do this by defining science to meet your need for an atheistic (or your newly found 'agnostic') explanation of all things."

If you think I'm the one who gets to define science, you have some really deep problems.

You are such a pedantic loser.

I wasn't saying that YOU get to define science for ALL the WORLD. But that this IS how you define it for yourself (and how you've used it throughout).

Again you miss the point. If evolutionary biology is so atheistic, why are the vast majority of people who accept it as valid theistic?

You still cannot separate the OBSERVED descent of animals from their OBSERVED ancestors from the MOLECULES to MAN evolution that IS the atheistic world-view.

I don't particularly care how many theistic evolutionists there are anyway, because their NUMBER nor if they are a MAJORITY affect what is TRUE.

You come across as someone who has some very deep issues with atheism and atheists...so much so that you project it onto conversations that are about other things (e.g., evolution). What is it about atheism that bothers you sooooo much?

I reject the arrogance of the atheistic world-view.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nonsense. You believe that you are all knowing (or at least you come off that way to me)...

...You continue to push the false notion that the only way that we can obtain knowledge (science) is by looking at matter and energy...

...You continue to wave your hands that this doesn't matter, but it does.

It's very revealing how you can't address what I actually say, but feel the need to create straw men and go after them instead. Why not just deal with what I say, rather than make up things and try and pin them on me?

But matter and energy do not explain where matter and energy come from, nor do they explain the existence of coded information like DNA.

The moon is made of cheese.

And given your almost total ignorance of the science behind these subjects, your empty assertions aren't worth much.

I didn't said that YOU said it

Then why are you expecting me to respond to things I never said?

But this certainly sounds like you, in my OPINION.

And as we've seen, you have some pretty significant reading comprehension problems.

You are such a pedantic loser.

And once again you're reduced to childish name-calling.

I wasn't saying that YOU get to define science for ALL the WORLD. But that this IS how you define it for yourself (and how you've used it throughout).

I did? Where did I do that? Or is are you making things up again?

You still cannot separate the OBSERVED descent of animals from their OBSERVED ancestors from the MOLECULES to MAN evolution that IS the atheistic world-view.

I don't particularly care how many theistic evolutionists there are anyway, because their NUMBER nor if they are a MAJORITY affect what is TRUE.

You completely missed the point yet again.

I reject the arrogance of the atheistic world-view.

I'm sure you do, but that doesn't explain why you react so harshly to it, and impose into subjects that have nothing to do with atheism. So again, what is it specifically about atheism that bothers you soooo much?

 

[Right Divider]

The moon is made of cheese.

So by this statement am I to understand that you think that we can determine the origin of matter and energy by observing matter and energy?

Please define all the things that you believe about origins, that way I cannot possibly confuse your position.

I am still under the impression that you think that it has been proven that all animals have a SCA. I am quite certain that it has not proven to anyone but those that want to believe it to begin with.

 

[alwight]

I am still under the impression that you think that it has been proven that all animals have a SCA. I am quite certain that it has not proven to anyone but those that want to believe it to begin with.

Scientific theories are never formally proven. A single common ancestry is simply what evidentially leads natural scientists of all faiths and none to conclude is probably true.
If it is nevertheless false then it seems that there should be some rational evidence to suggest otherwise, but so far it all seems to be absent.

 

[Jose Fly]

So by this statement am I to understand that you think that we can determine the origin of matter and energy by observing matter and energy?

No, it also requires lots, and lots, and lots of math.

Please define all the things that you believe about origins, that way I cannot possibly confuse your position.

Nah. I think I'm finished with our discussion. Maybe if you actually engaged the subject instead of constantly resorting to childish name-calling, we could have a have a decent conversation. But you don't seem to want that.

 

[Right Divider]

No, it also requires lots, and lots, and lots of math.

Where does math come from?

Nah. I think I'm finished with our discussion. Maybe if you actually engaged the subject instead of constantly resorting to childish name-calling, we could have a have a decent conversation. But you don't seem to want that.

Sure, right.

May God find you some day.