asyncritus' question time

asyncritus arguments against evolution

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Ironclad, Onyx8

Re: asyncritus' question time

#141  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2012 5:49 am

halucigenia wrote:Oh, well, here we go again it’s petunias time for me.

I came across this character on another forum ages ago and now they are spouting the same old tripe again over on the "Evolution & Natural Selection" sub forum here on rationalskepticism.org.
I thought that I should introduce you all to asyncritus and put the tripe where it belongs before it pollutes the thread that it was raised in.



Ahh yes, good old Asyncritus with his magical explanations for well-documented evolved traits.

But but but birds have a map implanted in their head by loving Jebus!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17231
Age: 37
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: asyncritus' question time

#142  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2012 5:53 am

asyncritus wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
Animavore wrote:Birds actually have scales on their legs. This is especially prominent on large birds. You can see this on my friend's turkeys. As you look up the leg you actually see the scales begin to become more perpendicular to the leg, elongated and feathery, quite quickly, as they near the top of the leg. I really don't see the problem there with that one. Once you pluck a turkey there's no scales under the feathery parts, because the feathers are the scales.


I don't see your point. Fish have a lot of scales too. You saying the birds could have evolved from fish too?


All tetrapods evolved from fish, so yes, birds did evolve from fish. To be precise, lobe-finned fish, beginning about 400 million years ago.


Ha ha haaaa!

You can't be serious. Or can you?

Explain this little point to me:

Here's a fish (whichever one you like) swimming in the water. Has lived there for n million years, doing all the things fish do. Like breathing with gills underwater.

Now for some reason (which you'll have to cook up) he decides to walk out on land. (BTW did you know that Tiktaalik is now dead as a dodo, and is now died out from the tetrapod evolution line?)

Let me grant you legs which have come from somewhere - he's developed them SO THAT he can get out and walk.

Right. He's got legs, but doesn't know what the hell to do with them. No walking/ambulatory instincts present.

So I ask you, where did the necessary instincts come from? Practice? Lamarck? What?



Tada

Exposed Platonism.

It's as simple as that: it's a fish. Fish swim. End of story for Platonists like Asyncritus. Perfect platonic fish cannot possibly do anything other than be fish, or they wouldn't be fish, so they wouldn't be evolving from fish into something else. The logic works if you either use 5th century B.C. scientific understanding, or lobotomise yourself with a spoon first.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17231
Age: 37
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#143  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2012 5:56 am

asyncritus wrote:
blindfaith wrote:to asyncritus, so what is your alternative to evolution?

thanks


Intelligent, no, Brilliant Creation.



All things dull and ugly...
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17231
Age: 37
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#144  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2012 6:30 am

Rumraket wrote:
hackenslash wrote:A new member reminded us of asyncritus' behaviour on the old forum:

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtop ... 6&t=109119

LOL that thread. Funny how he's back here asking the same questions that were already answered in that thread.



Ahh yes - some of the holes in Asyncritus' comprehension we identified:

Migratory birds not needing to land
Scientific predictions are prophecy
Magnetism not being detectable at depths
Stating that your hypothesis cannot be falsified as if that's a strength
Chemicals needing teleology to interact


Ohhh and of course: penguins can fly, dontcha know? ;)
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17231
Age: 37
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#145  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2012 6:36 am

asyncritus wrote:

Your theory is immediately in deep doo-doo. As it always is when required to be specific. Here's what I mean:

A flight feather is essential to flight in birds. (Bats and insects are another kettle of fish which I propose raising shortly).
But a flight feather bears no resemblance, fancied or otherwise, to a scale. Correct me if I'm wrong here.



You're wrong here. Next elementary biological fact you need to know to expound on this subject?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17231
Age: 37
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#146  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2012 6:37 am

asyncritus wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:

Tiktaalik didn't have legs. It had front fins like what might be expected in a species transitioning between water to land. It also had gills and rudimentary lungs. Something else expected of a transitioning species. And it had a neck found in land animals but not modern fish.

The cool thing about science and scientific hypotheses is that they make predictions, and Tiktaalik was one of those predictions. Not just the morphology but also where it would be found in the fossil record. That is why tiktaallik is important.

Tiktaalik may or may not be the direct ancestor of all tetrapods. It was a lobed finned fish with some tetrapod features. It could be a branch that went completely extinct leaving no descendent lines, but that doesn't mean that other lines similar to tiktaalik like fish didn't go on to eventually produce tetrapods.


You may believe that if you like, but I wonder if you remember the Latimeria debacle?

Here's something from Henry Gee, an editor of Nature, Jan 2010 that finishes off Tiktaalik as an ancestor of the tetrapods.

The best discoveries are those that overturn current thinking, revealing that what we thought, only yesterday, to have been a coherent and complete picture, is in fact a void that no discoveries can yet fill. Such is the report in tomorrow’s Nature (Niedźwiedzki et al., 463, 43-48, 7 January 2010) of footprints left by tetrapods (four legged land vertebrates) eighteen million years older than the earliest known tetrapod fossils, and ten million years older than the fossils of the creatures thought to be the closest relatives of tetrapods. A fairly complete picture of tetrapod evolution, built up over the past twenty years, has been replaced by a blank canvas overnight.

Tough luck, guys.



And the quote-mining is back in full-force, I see.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17231
Age: 37
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#147  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2012 6:40 am

asyncritus wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:I think that it is worth pointing out that amphibians have genes for both gills and lungs. Gills in the juvenile stage and lungs in the adult stage. They lay their eggs in fresh water where the juveniles hatch and swim around using gills, fins, and tails like fish, but later lose their tails, gills, and fins and grow legs, arms and, lungs, and a lot of them spend a lot of time out of the water.

Some amphibians even retain their gills into the adult stage after growing arms and legs.

Evolution in action right before your eyes? I think so!


I don't know who posted these pics of mudskippers, but you clearly have no idea of the biology of these fish, or of their ancestry, or you wouldn't even think that they are some kind of 'transitionals' between fish and tetrapods.

For a start, they don't have legs or lungs.

They breathe through their skin - and if you can believe that skin is a prototype lung then you're in a pretty bad way.

Second, have you ever looked at the anatomy of a fin as compared to a tetrapod forelimb? I doubt it somehow, or you wouldn't be putting up this tripe. I could use stronger (or worse) language, but you get the general idea, I'm sure.

So here are a couple of nice pictures for you to ruminate upon, and puke:

Image

Here's a coelacanth pectoral fin:

Image

And here are some tetrapod forelimbs:

Image

Haven't you got to be on mushrooms to say they're connected?

But you have avoided the question that's at the root both of your troubles and your willingness to post this tripe.

That question is:

Granted that a fish of some sort moved on to land and became an amphibian or a reptile of some kind,
where did it get the powering instincts to enable it to a.walk and b.breathe with lungs?

Never mind the question where did the lungs come from, and why. That's too tough for an evolutionist fairy-tale spinner. Answer those 2 questions above, and I'll recommend you for a Nobel.

PS BTW, have you ever noticed that the pelvic fins of fishes are almost invariably SMALLER (or maybe just the same size) than the pectorals?

And have you noticed that the hind limbs of tetrapods are invariably LARGER than their forelimbs? (think of a kangaroo, for instance as an extreme example). Now how did that happen?




Platonic Fish Alert!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17231
Age: 37
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: asyncritus' question time

#148  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2012 6:43 am

asyncritus wrote:
Oldskeptic wrote:Image

Angler fish don't use their fins to swim around much either they use their fins to move around on the bottom and jump on prey. I wonder where that instinct came from?


I'm sure you know the answer deep down. There isn't another really, you know.

But did you ever wonder how the fish thought up the fish rod and light-bait idea?

Just think how many of their ancestors must have starved before they suddenly had the 'bright' idea :scratch: in the deep, dark ocean!

But that's a minor problem for the old suspects: 'mutations and natural selection', don't you think?

After all, if M and NS can produce a fish that has lungs and goes to live on land, and walk, then what's a fish rod and light lure for them to figure out? Not much, really.



Fuck me, the arguments from ignorance and incredulity never end.

I can't possibly imagine how X happened, therefore god did it.

I've already explained to you in the past how utterly preposterous this is.

It's called a compound sentence. It has 2 clauses; an independent clause (the first one), and a dependent clause (the 2nd one). The 2nd clause has no meaning without the primary, independent clause. That being the case grammatically and logically, what you are actually saying is: I don't know how, therefore I know how.

It's not even achieved an elementary level of logic. There's really no point in anyone pursuing a serious discussion with you when you are unable to frame coherent thoughts on this topic matter. It's pure emotion, with knee-jerk snatching at snippets of ideas that you, in your confusion of the subject, perceive as being of use to your presuppositional argument - that god did it.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Apr 27, 2012 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17231
Age: 37
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#149  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2012 6:46 am

asyncritus wrote:
Pulsar wrote:
asyncritus wrote:But then, I suppose you're the sort that would come across a watch in the grass in somebody's garden and look at it carefully, see the wheels, battery, quartz crystal if any, printed circuits, computer chip and all the other things that make it work perfectly well, and say 'it just happened'.

So you agree then that the watch is designed, while the grass isn't.


Hardly.

The grass is infinitely more complex than the watch, and speaks even more loudly of design and creation.



Ergo: complex = design.

Of course, I can show you tens of thousands of examples of complexity arising from simple rules... in fact, complexity never arises without simple rules interacting. There's no point in showing you anything though because you'll only ignore it.

For those without the religious predilection for ignoring contradictory facts, enjoy the video of 'designed complexity':

(just turn your speakers down first!)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf0t4qIVWF4[/youtube]
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17231
Age: 37
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#150  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2012 6:48 am

asyncritus wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
Pulsar wrote:
So you agree then that the watch is designed, while the grass isn't.


Hardly.

The grass is infinitely more complex than the watch, and speaks even more loudly of design and creation.

Still baseless projection.
You can claim design all you want, until you can actually provide evidence, it's nothing but baseless conjecture.


You've got nothing.

Prove that it's NOT design.



Hold on - I've just got to shift this burden of proof somewhere else first, then I'll get round to your demands. :doh:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17231
Age: 37
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#151  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2012 6:50 am

asyncritus wrote:There must be some rule on this forum about people either being unable to answer questions, or refusing to do so.



O
m
f
g

:lol: :lol: :lol:





asyncritus wrote:I have repeatedly asked you certain questions, and you have ignored them, or been unable to answer them. Neither case constitutes an answer.



Oh the kettle certainly feels ashamed at its blackness after being informed of it by the pot.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17231
Age: 37
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#152  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2012 6:52 am

asyncritus wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
Shrunk wrote:Suppose your son is born with a slightly longer femur than yours, which allows him to run faster than you. Would he have to develop an entirely new "instinct" to be able to take advantage of this?


Please, Shrunk.

We are not discussing the computer.

We're discussing the software which makes it run.

Instinct makes him able to stay upright and run in the first place. The question before us is 'how did that instinct evolve'?'


That's exactly what I'm talking about.

So are you going to answer the question?


I'm sorry, but that is the question you have to answer. My answer is that he was created able to do so, with the instincts implanted.

What's yours?




My answer is that immaterial, invisible fairies routinely perform magic every time someone wants to do something - they just make it occur precisely as intended.

So prove me wrong.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17231
Age: 37
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#153  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2012 1:43 pm

Purely by chance, this story is in the news today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17855194

Researchers have spotted a group of 53 cells within pigeons' brains that respond to the direction and strength of the Earth's magnetic field.



But of course, Asyncritus doesn't believe that because he can't understand it, so it just simply can't be true. Actually, God directs every little bird to arrive at its destination. Awwww.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17231
Age: 37
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#154  Postby asyncritus » Apr 27, 2012 7:48 pm

OK you guys.
You've spent a lot of good electrons failing to answer ANY of the points raised.

Let's just take one.

How did a bat precursor (for which you have no evidence whatsoever) obtain the most advanced echolocation system on the planet? And learn how to use it?

Please forego the insults now you've got them out of your systems, and answer the question. Scientifically, of course.

Heh heh heh!!! :lol: :drunk:

Thanks
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#155  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2012 7:56 pm

asyncritus wrote:OK you guys.
You've spent a lot of good electrons failing to answer ANY of the points raised.

Let's just take one.

How did a bat precursor (for which you have no evidence whatsoever) obtain the most advanced echolocation system on the planet? And learn how to use it?

Please forego the insults now you've got them out of your systems, and answer the question. Scientifically, of course.

Heh heh heh!!! :lol: :drunk:

Thanks



There are hundreds of billions of traits you could randomly pick and demand an explanation for, with undefined specificity. The general answer has been given to you so many fucking times it's absurd.

It's natural selection operating on genes.

End of story.

The problem is that when people go to the trouble of researching, finding papers, and then presenting them here... all you do is say you don't believe it, ignore the papers and continue blathering on about how no one can convince you therefore god.

Now either go find a new axe to grind or do some basic reading on the subject.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods.
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 17231
Age: 37
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: asyncritus' question time

#156  Postby asyncritus » Apr 27, 2012 7:59 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Purely by chance, this story is in the news today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17855194

Researchers have spotted a group of 53 cells within pigeons' brains that respond to the direction and strength of the Earth's magnetic field.



But of course, Asyncritus doesn't believe that because he can't understand it, so it just simply can't be true. Actually, God directs every little bird to arrive at its destination. Awwww.


I'm sure you've got 53 cells somewhere - but you don't manage to fly 7,800 miles from Argentina to Capistrano and arrive there on the same date every year, do you?

Can you understand that little (???!!!!) fact? And have you any explanation for it? No don't tell me - blind, moronic evolution did it!!!!!! Ha hah hahhhhhh!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :drunk: You guys have gotta be kidding, right?
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#157  Postby Rumraket » Apr 27, 2012 8:02 pm

asyncritus wrote:OK you guys.
You've spent a lot of good electrons failing to answer ANY of the points raised.

Let's just take one.

How did a bat precursor (for which you have no evidence whatsoever)

Molecular phylogenetics and Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction. Look it up.

This annihilates the rest of your shit.

asyncritus wrote: obtain the most advanced echolocation system on the planet? And learn how to use it?

Please forego the insults now you've got them out of your systems, and answer the question. Scientifically, of course.

Heh heh heh!!! :lol: :drunk:

Thanks

:crazy: :teef:
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 8815
Age: 33
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#158  Postby Rumraket » Apr 27, 2012 8:04 pm

asyncritus wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Purely by chance, this story is in the news today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17855194

Researchers have spotted a group of 53 cells within pigeons' brains that respond to the direction and strength of the Earth's magnetic field.



But of course, Asyncritus doesn't believe that because he can't understand it, so it just simply can't be true. Actually, God directs every little bird to arrive at its destination. Awwww.


I'm sure you've got 53 cells somewhere - but you don't manage to fly 7,800 miles from Argentina to Capistrano and arrive there on the same date every year, do you?

Can you understand that little (???!!!!) fact? And have you any explanation for it? No don't tell me - blind, moronic evolution did it!!!!!! Ha hah hahhhhhh!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :drunk: You guys have gotta be kidding, right?

I notice a distinct lack of arguments in your post, but a couple of blind assertions and appeals to personal incredulity.

You know you're arguing entirely from a position of logical fallacies, right? Just checking. :roll:
"When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." - Anonymous
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 8815
Age: 33
Male

Denmark (dk)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#159  Postby asyncritus » Apr 27, 2012 8:12 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
asyncritus wrote:OK you guys.

There are hundreds of billions of traits you could randomly pick and demand an explanation for, with undefined specificity. The general answer has been given to you so many fucking times it's absurd.


Where? Where? Where? Tell me, pleeeeez!

It's natural selection operating on genes.

End of story.


And that's it huh? Woweee!

So the imaginary bat precursor, with the imaginary echolocations system somewhere in its genes, got acted on by natural selection which couldn't do any selecting because the character wasn't yet manifested, and BINGO! the most advanced echolocating system on the planet appeared.

You must have an awful lot of faith in your natural selection god! As I said, evolution is the creation myth of our time, packed full of just-so stories.

The problem is that when people go to the trouble of researching, finding papers, and then presenting them here... all you do is say you don't believe it, ignore the papers and continue blathering on about how no one can convince you therefore god.

Now either go find a new axe to grind or do some basic reading on the subject.


The papers you guys have quoted are so full of irrelevancies, tripe and guesswork it's hard to credit it. I've shown quite clearly how poor the effort was to attempt to change the reptile respiratory to the bird's, which is completely backward. How did you gainsay the argument I put forward? You couldn't.

When are you going to abandon the theory?
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

Re: asyncritus' question time

#160  Postby asyncritus » Apr 27, 2012 8:15 pm

Rumraket wrote:
asyncritus wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:Purely by chance, this story is in the news today:

I'm sure you've got 53 cells somewhere - but you don't manage to fly 7,800 miles from Argentina to Capistrano and arrive there on the same date every year, do you?

Can you understand that little (???!!!!) fact? And have you any explanation for it? No don't tell me - blind, moronic evolution did it!!!!!! Ha hah hahhhhhh!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :drunk: You guys have gotta be kidding, right?

I notice a distinct lack of arguments in your post, but a couple of blind assertions and appeals to personal incredulity.

You know you're arguing entirely from a position of logical fallacies, right? Just checking. :roll:


You managed to get that fish on to dry land yet?

What about your 13-year old adviser? Any pearls of wisdom? No? Has he/she got a goldfish? Tell 'em to experiment on the fish. Drop it on the carpet, and let's see if it grows lungs, legs or even wings - who knows with this evolution thingy?

I'll get you a Nobel if it does.
Last edited by asyncritus on Apr 27, 2012 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
asyncritus
 
Name: Arthur Johnson
Posts: 114

Country: UK
Barbados (bb)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest