[aldo_14]

OK, fair statement, but in which direction of the arguement does it lend its support, It sounds a bit christian to me.

Not really.  It just means that every animal exists because it has evolved to fit into an ecological niche.

[Colonol Dekker]

Well at least you chose a side










The correct one.......................... Orly?, Ya RLY !

[Kosh]

I say the place of the Platypus is to make us all scratch our heads and wonder "how the hell did that happen?"

[Mefustae]

...and taste like chicken.

[m]

Since you haven't figured out how to check someone's profile on the HLP yet, I went and figured it out for you (although I already know m's age anyways).

That changes nothing, only that he is somewhat uneducated for a person of his age. Hell, I could explain the basics of plate tectonics and continental drift when I was 14, and he's 17 and never even heard of it!

No, I just wanted to make sure you guys would use the same arguments that all evolutionists use, because honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them (such as saying Haeckel had the right idea regarding embryo development).

Anyway, I'm going to cut loose (for a while) from the manymanymanymanymany different things I've been saying, and focus on one thing that I never really finished: snowflakes.
Evolutionaries: * *

I think it was kara (means "joy" in Greek) who brought up the thing of "When I roll dice they obey the same law of gravity so why do they always land differently?"

My response:
Sometimes they land the same!!!  :
Snowflakes don't!   

Hopefully I can get a good response, but 'til then,

m

[Shade]

Tell me, what proof do you have that no two snowflakes are the same?

[m]

*Sigh*

honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them

Commonly known fact; could someone answer my argument here?

PLEEEEEASE?   

-m

[Edward Bradshaw]

No, I just wanted to make sure you guys would use the same arguments that all evolutionists use, because honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them (such as saying Haeckel had the right idea regarding embryo development).

Haeckel did have the right idea regarding embryo development, but he wasnt completely correct either.  But beause of him we now have an entire field of science called Embryology. Look it up.

Anyway, I'm going to cut loose (for a while) from the manymanymanymanymany different things I've been saying, and focus on one thing that I never really finished: snowflakes.

My response:
Sometimes they land the same!!!  :
Snowflakes don't!   

What are you trying to say here? Wow, they dont land the same...therefore God?  You'd probably think the banana is a good argument for God. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A

Dont you realise snowflakes are just one of things that refute the Creationist argument that complexity cannot increase? Ie. "the 2nd law of Thermodynamics refutes evolution" you and Jr2 seem so unable to understand is a load of crap?



Ed

[Shade]

Commonly known fact does not equal proof, or even evidence, and most definitely not truth: 1500 years ago it was a commonly known fact that the sun revolved around the earth. 600 years ago it was a commonly known fact that there was no such continent as the Americas. 94 years and 5 months ago it was a commonly known fact that the Titanic was unsinkable. All commonly known facts. All wrong.

So, what proof or even evidence do you have that no two snowflakes are the same? It's a simple enough question, compared all the others you've failed to answer on this thread...

[Edward Bradshaw]

*Sigh*

honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them

Commonly known fact; could someone answer my argument here?

PLEEEEEASE?   

-m

In theory you could get two snowflakes exactly alike. The reason we dont find them is that the chances of two snowflakes having its complex water molocules in the exact same place as the other is practically zero. Snowflake shapes vary greatly on their environment, there are almost infinite different shapes. Its the same reason jewels are so prized because chances are you will never find one "exactly" the same. Big deal.

[Shade]

Meh, he ran away without answering the extremely simple question. If it weren't so hilariously funny watching his futile attempts at stringing together an actual argument, this might concievably be frustrating Ah well, at least I can wallow in the fact that my very first gut feeling about him proved correct.

[Ace]

No, I just wanted to make sure you guys would use the same arguments that all evolutionists use, because honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them (such as saying Haeckel had the right idea regarding embryo development).

The difference between good science and bad science -- religion is being able to fit an answer better to the evidence provided.

People such as Haeckel had questionable concepts with ontogeny follows phylogeny, made even worse when he and others tried to "apply" them. Spencer, the father of Social "Darwinism" is also looked at quite negatively for the same reasons.

I do think it is quite revealing when as opposed to attacking modern research creationists have to pull out debunked centuries old "science" that was questionable in its own day. (Spencer, Larmarck, Yerkes, and Haeckel) For that matter the obession with Darwin. Why don't we see people attacking Paternal Investment theory?

[Edward Bradshaw]

Meh, he ran away without answering the extremely simple question. If it weren't so hilariously funny watching his futile attempts at stringing together an actual argument, this might concievably be frustrating Ah well, at least I can wallow in the fact that my very first gut feeling about him proved correct.

Whats funny is after pages and pages of him ignoring and hand waving absolutely everything without a second thought, since he clearly doesnt have the first clue about what our responces even mean, he has been reduced to something the thinks he understands. In other words, his last straw.

[Shade]

Only drawback is that a) I'm not at work while he's browsing the forum, and b) I don't have access to a computer while working anyhow, as it's 70% outdoors work. It's a pity, would be supreme for alleviating work-boredom. But I'm sure there are some lucky ones outthere in appropriate timezones for whom it does this

[Bobboau]

if a train leaves London headed for New york it will never arive in Indonesia. if you apply this annalogy to the transverse wave forms of coton candy in the ocean there will be there right in front of you sheer undenyable proof that there is no god (what a bunch of fools lolrolflmao!!!!!) and if there was then it would mean that I could eat bolders and **** lightning.

this has been another eppisode of mocking m's 'random bull**** as an argument' style.
is there any thought to this at all, snow flakes again, I thought we left that distraction a month ago, but then he never answered any of our responces he just disapeared for a month again.

this disgusts me ...

[Shade]

Don't take it so hard, think of it as... as... hmmm.... yes!, as a Monty Python sketch. He's the guy in the pet shop who keeps insisting the parrot isn't dead

[aldo_14]

Since you haven't figured out how to check someone's profile on the HLP yet, I went and figured it out for you (although I already know m's age anyways).

That changes nothing, only that he is somewhat uneducated for a person of his age. Hell, I could explain the basics of plate tectonics and continental drift when I was 14, and he's 17 and never even heard of it!

No, I just wanted to make sure you guys would use the same arguments that all evolutionists use, because honestly, some of the things you say are so wacked out that modern evolutionist leaders would deny them (such as saying Haeckel had the right idea regarding embryo development).

Anyway, I'm going to cut loose (for a while) from the manymanymanymanymany different things I've been saying, and focus on one thing that I never really finished: snowflakes.
Evolutionaries: * *

I think it was kara (means "joy" in Greek) who brought up the thing of "When I roll dice they obey the same law of gravity so why do they always land differently?"

My response:
Sometimes they land the same!!!  :
Snowflakes don't!   

Hopefully I can get a good response, but 'til then,

m

Snowflakes form according to known and measured physical rules regarding (ice) crystal formation.  Moreso, there is no physical law barring identical snowflakes; it's just highly unlikely any object in the universe will carry the same arrangement of molecules.  In both the case of snowflakes and dice there are a set of known and measured rules regarding what happens, the probabilities, etc.  The - supposed - uniqueness of snowflakes is simply a consequence of the increased complexity, much the same as getting the same result from throwing 1000 dice.

[Bobboau]

Don't take it so hard, think of it as... as... hmmm.... yes!, as a Monty Python sketch. He's the guy in the pet shop who keeps insisting the parrot isn't dead

yeah

[Kamikaze]

The snowflakes versus dice analogy is a flawed one. No two dice are the same either. Human eyes are just incapable of seeing the microscopic differences in the dice. Same with snowflakes, but I guess you see a lot more close-up photos of snowflakes than of dice.

[karajorma]

It's more than that. No two dice throws are exactly the same either. The height varies, the way the dice moved is different.

Put seriously this is beyond pathetic. We've completely demolished every single argument this guy has made and yet he still goes on about snowflakes as if proving me wrong about that will prove him completely right about every single thing we've all said in this debate.

It really won't.