Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
So does that mean you don't want to play the "Let's See How Evolution Works Game" anymore?

Were you aware that we already debated Ambulocetus and Pakicetus in May and June?

A debate goes back and forth and then we go on, unless some additional information comes forth.

Since you don't have anything new, your choices were to debate another 'walking whale' or one of your 'bird' transition.

Which one is it?

I realize that you closed down your board in frustration in June.

You have made many unsupported claims about the folly of whale evolution. However, you haven't been able to counter any of the whale evidence. You have tried posting a few out of context quotes, which we have shown don't represent the science.

At the same time, we have shown multiple lines of analysis that all confirm the whale transitional series. And we all noted that you closed down your board after deleting a number of posts. I have noted that you have deleted a few post yesterday when that pointed to your inability to respond to these arguments. I have been quite patient with your willingness to bully when the game doesn't go your way.

Beyond that, I have not only harkened back to earlier arguments but have brought in new information in recent posts. You have chosen to ignore this information0.

The truth about the board being suspended.

As I stated before and after it occurred, I suspended the board due to vevamping our website.

See:
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/722499/

Also, during that time, my father passed away, so the delay was longer that anticipated.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You have made many unsupported claims about the folly of whale evolution. However, you haven't been able to counter any of the whale evidence. You have tried posting a few out of context quotes, which we have shown don't represent the science.

At the same time, we have shown multiple lines of analysis that all confirm the whale transitional series. And we all noted that you closed down your board after deleting a number of posts. I have noted that you have deleted a few post yesterday when that pointed to your inability to respond to these arguments. I have been quite patient with your willingness to bully when the game doesn't go your way.

Beyond that, I have not only harkened back to earlier arguments but have brought in new information in recent posts. You have chosen to ignore this information0.

Sorry to hear about your dad.

He seemed like a nice guy according to the obituary.

I also noticed that you still haven't responded to any of my points.

You ignored the transitional nature of Ambulocetus in my last post. It has been pretty typical of your responses. As though a couple of out-of-context quotes could counter the scientific data supporting the whale transitional sequence.

Be specific - No drama necessary

1. Haven't you noticed yet that, unless you are specific, I don't respond to you?

2. Yes, we know you hate every quote that refutes your 'evidence.'

3. What do you consider 'data' if you don't think a quote from a scientific paper, article, or journal qualifies? Where is your 'data' from?

3. Isn't it interesting that I have NEVER claimed that any of your quotes were 'out-of-context'? Why do you suppose that is?


Whine on ...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You ignored the transitional nature of Ambulocetus in my last post. It has been pretty typical of your responses. As though a couple of out-of-context quotes could counter the scientific data supporting the whale transitional sequence.

Re: Be specific - No drama necessary

WiYC said:
" 1. Haven't you noticed yet that, unless you are specific, I don't respond to you?"

No drama. Just the facts ma'am. You didn't respond to a single point made and attempted to dodge the debate.
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/727125/

"2. Yes, we know you hate every quote that refutes your 'evidence.'"

You really haven't presented any quotes that refute the evolutionary evidence. You have presented many quotes. I then explain why they are not a refutation of evolution and you either drop the point or simply continue to repeat the quote.

"3. What do you consider 'data' if you don't think a quote from a scientific paper, article, or journal qualifies? Where is your 'data' from?"

It is not where it comes from but whether it says what you claim it does. Generally, it doesn't.

3. Isn't it interesting that I have NEVER claimed that any of your quotes were 'out-of-context'? Why do you suppose that is?"

You live in a glass house. I wouldn't if I were you either.


"Whine on ..."

As I have said to you many times before. It is not whining to expect honesty in the use of sources.

Is there something new?

Which topic is new and one that we haven't covered before?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

You ignored the transitional nature of Ambulocetus in my last post. It has been pretty typical of your responses. As though a couple of out-of-context quotes could counter the scientific data supporting the whale transitional sequence.

One example from today

Multiple SINE transposons that support the common ancestry of whales with hippos and ruminants. And like all the other evidence for the whale series, you couldn't present a creationist explanation for this occurance. With three shared and the other multiple lines of evidence common descent of these creatures becomes much stronger.

Did you forget I did respond twice, and you responded only 45 minutes before your tirade?

This is my response from a earlier posting on this very thread.

From: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/727123/1
In regard to your comment:

"More specifically, three different specific SINE transpositions have been found in the same chromosomal locations of cetaceans (whales), hippos, and ruminants, all of which are closely related according to the standard phylogenetic tree. However, all other mammals, including camels and pigs, lack these three specific transpositions (Shimamura 1997)."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

Please refer to contradictory scientific evidence:

"These results have major repercussions for phylogenetic analyses based on SINE insertions, indicating the need for caution when one concludes that the existence of a SINE at a specific locus in multiple individuals is indicative of common ancestry. Although independent insertions at the same locus may be rare, SINE insertions are not homoplasy-free phylogenetic markers."

From 'Genetics' June 2001 158(2) 769-777 published by Genetics Society of America:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1461688&rendertype=abstract

Would you like to contact talkorigins to have them update their 'scientific' website?

Re: Did you forget I did respond twice, and you responded only 45 minutes before your tirade?

We weren't talking about analysis based on SINE insertions. We were talking about endogenous retrovirii being found in the same location among multiple species. SINE insertions are a different class of retrotransposons. One considerably less complex than ERVs. You might count this article as a response, but it really doesn't address the issue at hand.

You could try something new?

Actually engaging in debate about the specific evidence of the whale sequence instead of trying to avoid a debate. I can understand why you don't. The case for the whale sequence has multiple fossils that show a graduated change in characteristics over time. These characteristics show increasing adaptation to life in the oceans from the earliest terrestrial whales to the obligate marine creature we see today.

Postings like these will be deleted from now on

You must have forgotten about this.

From: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726906/1

"This forum is for creationists to present a critical analysis of the theory of evolution and for evolutionists to defend it.

Because evolution is claimed to be a scientific fact, the burden of proof is on evolutionists. Since you have NOT made your case yet, offering EVIDENCE instead of your insensate whinning is the only thing that will save your theory.

If you wish to start a thread with some evidence to prove your theory, go ahead. Otherwise, I will delete any postings without specific points.

If you don't like it, go play somewhere else."

Re: Postings like these will be deleted from now on

WiYC said:
"You must have forgotten about this.

From: http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/726906/1

"This forum is for creationists to present a critical analysis of the theory of evolution and for evolutionists to defend it."

Like so much of this forum, you have deleted that post. Interesting. I have shown you how your critical analysis just doesn't hold up. You don't want to talk about the actual evidence.

"Because evolution is claimed to be a scientific fact, the burden of proof is on evolutionists. Since you have NOT made your case yet, offering EVIDENCE instead of your insensate whinning is the only thing that will save your theory."

I have given you evidence and corrected your misconceptions about whale evolution. I am not the one deleting posts. You are the one that seems to whine about when you can't refute the truth of evolution. I have posted things more than once because you never responded to them the first time around. Not whining, just stating the facts. Of course when it is pointed out that you can't hold your own, you start deleting posts.