That's not a sea lion: there's no red ball on its nose ...
(Sorry - been a bad day ...)
Henry J · 27 April 2010
By golly, that looks like a transitional species.
Nonsense - it's obviously fully formed as what it be!!1111!!one!!
Robert Byers · 27 April 2010
This isn't a transitional species but rather it shows the true orbit of diversity. It simply is a type of these creatures that came into being almost instantly soon after the flood. In fact there are many more types in the fossil record that are now extinct and certainly there were possibly hundreds of types with different details. It been a error of evolutionism to see trails of origin in species and not rather the more likely conclusion that diversity is instant , and very flexible without any need to see connections. Seals etc show today a remnant of original diversity and that its origin is innate adaptation almost instantly.
Robert Byers said: It simply is a type of these creatures that came into being almost instantly soon after the flood.
Byers has previously mentioned two or three species changes per generation - in other words, miracles. And miracles have no place in science. Byers' religion-based delusions can be safely ignored.
Dave Luckett · 1 May 2010
Paul Burnett said:
Byers has previously mentioned two or three species changes per generation - in other words, miracles. And miracles have no place in science. Byers' religion-based delusions can be safely ignored.
Ignored? Rather, let them be shouted from the rooftops. He might as well go around bellowing "I am barking, frothing mad!" at the top of his voice.
David Fickett-Wilbar · 1 May 2010
Henry J said:
My version of that joke was more concise than Byers' version. And I knew that it was a joke when posting it.
I don't know; when I was reading Byers post I thought it was just someone carrying on the joke until I saw his name on it. If a parody that's indistinguishable from a serious post is a Poe, what's a serious post that's indistinguishable from a parody called?
Henry J · 1 May 2010
what’s a serious post that’s indistinguishable from a parody called?
Word salad?
Robert Byers · 2 May 2010
Paul Burnett said:
Robert Byers said: It simply is a type of these creatures that came into being almost instantly soon after the flood.
Byers has previously mentioned two or three species changes per generation - in other words, miracles. And miracles have no place in science. Byers' religion-based delusions can be safely ignored.
There is evidence in the fossil and living record of great diversity.
So how to explain this when it was not observed.
The evolution cats say this and that.
Yet if one dismisses evolution then one needs another mechanism for diversity especially from the limited kinds on the biblical Ark.
So it must be that biology from innate triggers immediately is able to fill all niches from migrant populations. So instant changes within the same or a few generations.
This idea is no less then your evolution ideas.
Its still all speculating on raw data.
There is no reason to see evolution making a bug into a buffalo and no evidence of the myriad intermediates stages even if they were recognizable.
Its all primitive guessing upon real existing mechanisms in nature.
This seal is an example of instant diversity and simply seals types are many because they live in extreme areas that survived climate disasters.
This seal is not intermediate ever between this or that and is not going anywhere i the future by way of evolution.
Its been a misunderstanding of evolution to see diversity from changing types. In fact all types of seals came into being within a few decades after the flood including ceasing to be land creatures. I suspect the seal is just in the kind that would include bears and dogs and so. After the flood the seas were empty of their previous occupants, save a remnant, and so it was easy for ground creatures to find their place in the water.
DS · 2 May 2010
There is no evidence in the fossil and living record of any great flood or ark. So how to explain this when it was not observed? Obviously you don't have to.
DS said:
There is no evidence in the fossil and living record of any great flood or ark. So how to explain this when it was not observed? Obviously you don't have to.
Especially since Robert Byers is a moronic idiot.
John Kwok · 3 May 2010
My dear delusional Booby -
This is the closest I have seen with respect to anything even remotely resembling original, critical thought from you. That's the good news:
Robert Byers said:
Paul Burnett said:
Robert Byers said: It simply is a type of these creatures that came into being almost instantly soon after the flood.
Byers has previously mentioned two or three species changes per generation - in other words, miracles. And miracles have no place in science. Byers' religion-based delusions can be safely ignored.
There is evidence in the fossil and living record of great diversity.
So how to explain this when it was not observed.
The evolution cats say this and that.
Yet if one dismisses evolution then one needs another mechanism for diversity especially from the limited kinds on the biblical Ark.
So it must be that biology from innate triggers immediately is able to fill all niches from migrant populations. So instant changes within the same or a few generations.
This idea is no less then your evolution ideas.
Its still all speculating on raw data.
There is no reason to see evolution making a bug into a buffalo and no evidence of the myriad intermediates stages even if they were recognizable.
Its all primitive guessing upon real existing mechanisms in nature.
This seal is an example of instant diversity and simply seals types are many because they live in extreme areas that survived climate disasters.
This seal is not intermediate ever between this or that and is not going anywhere i the future by way of evolution.
Its been a misunderstanding of evolution to see diversity from changing types. In fact all types of seals came into being within a few decades after the flood including ceasing to be land creatures. I suspect the seal is just in the kind that would include bears and dogs and so. After the flood the seas were empty of their previous occupants, save a remnant, and so it was easy for ground creatures to find their place in the water.
The bad news is that you still flunk. Don't need to go through such contortions if you realized that Natural Selection is quite a valid mechanism for descent with modification (Better known as evolution.). Might as well just throw your hands up in the air and recognize the scientific and theological superiority of Klingon Cosmology.
Robert Byers · 4 May 2010
John Kwok said:
My dear delusional Booby -
This is the closest I have seen with respect to anything even remotely resembling original, critical thought from you. That's the good news:
Robert Byers said:
Paul Burnett said:
Robert Byers said: It simply is a type of these creatures that came into being almost instantly soon after the flood.
Byers has previously mentioned two or three species changes per generation - in other words, miracles. And miracles have no place in science. Byers' religion-based delusions can be safely ignored.
There is evidence in the fossil and living record of great diversity.
So how to explain this when it was not observed.
The evolution cats say this and that.
Yet if one dismisses evolution then one needs another mechanism for diversity especially from the limited kinds on the biblical Ark.
So it must be that biology from innate triggers immediately is able to fill all niches from migrant populations. So instant changes within the same or a few generations.
This idea is no less then your evolution ideas.
Its still all speculating on raw data.
There is no reason to see evolution making a bug into a buffalo and no evidence of the myriad intermediates stages even if they were recognizable.
Its all primitive guessing upon real existing mechanisms in nature.
This seal is an example of instant diversity and simply seals types are many because they live in extreme areas that survived climate disasters.
This seal is not intermediate ever between this or that and is not going anywhere i the future by way of evolution.
Its been a misunderstanding of evolution to see diversity from changing types. In fact all types of seals came into being within a few decades after the flood including ceasing to be land creatures. I suspect the seal is just in the kind that would include bears and dogs and so. After the flood the seas were empty of their previous occupants, save a remnant, and so it was easy for ground creatures to find their place in the water.
The bad news is that you still flunk. Don't need to go through such contortions if you realized that Natural Selection is quite a valid mechanism for descent with modification (Better known as evolution.). Might as well just throw your hands up in the air and recognize the scientific and theological superiority of Klingon Cosmology.
We say it isn'
t.
First we have the confidence in Christian foundations of genesis.
Then we examine the merits of evolutionism.
Natural selection is impossible as a mechanism to have tuned bugs into many stomach cows.
Complexity is so wonderful that as Darwin admited it requires quite a lot to prove evolution.
To creates millions of advantages is just unlikely and myth like to explain the complexity of biology.
It truly seems silly it ever was accepted in the circles that did.
Dave Luckett · 4 May 2010
Says Byers:
First we have the confidence in Christian foundations of genesis. Then we examine the merits of evolutionism.
Thereby demonstrating that he has the process exactly backwards, and that he can't think in terms of evidence.
And then we have this gem of English expression:
Natural selection is impossible as a mechanism to have tuned bugs into many stomach cows.
I nominate that one for the Rollo H Gibberish Award for Demented Babble, Unhinged Glossolalia Section.
Andrew Stallard · 4 May 2010
Robert Byers said:
Natural selection is impossible as a mechanism to have tuned bugs into many stomach cows.
Complexity is so wonderful that as Darwin admited it requires quite a lot to prove evolution.
To creates millions of advantages is just unlikely and myth like to explain the complexity of biology.
It truly seems silly it ever was accepted in the circles that did.
Dear Mr. Byers:
Could you please explain to us what this ineffable, mysterious quantity called "complexity" actually is. Tell us what its dimensions are, whether it is an intensive or extensive property, and how we measure or calculate it. Provide some simple examples with ordinary objects to help us get a handle on it. I've asked some other creationists on this board and others to do this, and none of them has bothered to try. Are you up to it?
Robert Byers said:
Natural selection is impossible as a mechanism to have tuned bugs into many stomach cows.
Complexity is so wonderful that as Darwin admited it requires quite a lot to prove evolution.
To creates millions of advantages is just unlikely and myth like to explain the complexity of biology.
It truly seems silly it ever was accepted in the circles that did.
Dear Mr. Byers:
Could you please explain to us what this ineffable, mysterious quantity called "complexity" actually is. Tell us what its dimensions are, whether it is an intensive or extensive property, and how we measure or calculate it. Provide some simple examples with ordinary objects to help us get a handle on it. I've asked some other creationists on this board and others to do this, and none of them has bothered to try. Are you up to it?
Mr Byers is incapable of defining the term "complexity" as it is abused by creationists and Intelligent Design proponents. After all, please remember that we're dealing with an idiot who deliberately conflates his own personal distastes with universal standards of immorality and illegality, who thinks that the use of BCE/CE instead of BC/AD is a heinous crime against Christians everywhere, and who crows about how evolution does not exist, yet hypocritically invokes magical hyperevolution in order to explain the world's diversity having descended from the economically yet illogically packed Ark of Noah.
John Kwok · 4 May 2010
I strongly second:
Dave Luckett said:
And then we have this gem of English expression:
Natural selection is impossible as a mechanism to have tuned bugs into many stomach cows.
I nominate that one for the Rollo H Gibberish Award for Demented Babble, Unhinged Glossolalia Section.
On the other hand, maybe Booby thought he was speaking English, but wound out with a bad translation of some Gondorian Elvish tongue.
John Kwok · 4 May 2010
Sorry Booby, on the contrary, Darwin didn't demonstrate that:
Robert Byers said:
Complexity is so wonderful that as Darwin admited it requires quite a lot to prove evolution.
To creates millions of advantages is just unlikely and myth like to explain the complexity of biology.
It truly seems silly it ever was accepted in the circles that did.
Instead, building upon brilliant insights he obtained by studying artifical selection, as noted in his "On the Origin of Species", he demonstrated how simple and elegant and easy a process Natural Selection is. So much so, he was able to conclude with utmost sincerity and poetic elegance, as the final sentence of this book:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
stevaroni · 4 May 2010
Robert Byers said:
Natural selection is impossible as a mechanism to have tu(r)ned bugs into many stomach cows.
Complexity is so wonderful that as Darwin admited it requires quite a lot to prove evolution.
I always chuckle that the creationists always worry about things like "bugs into cows" or Byer's previous favorite, "cows into whales", when in the big picture, these are actually fairly small, incremental steps.
The real challenge was getting all the basic biochemistry correct and sorting out things like sexual reproduction and nervous systems.
The true giant leaps were made somewhere between the stromatolites and the Cambrian arthropods. Most of the changes since then, though dramatic to us, and inconceivable to Byers, are actually just fiddling with the same building blocks, which is why you can genetic research on a fruit fly that is applicable to a Byers troll.
stevaroni said:
I always chuckle that the creationists always worry about things like "bugs into cows" or Byer's previous favorite, "cows into whales" ...
PYGMIES & DWARVES!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Henry J · 4 May 2010
And of course "bugs into cows" ignores the known cladistic relationships. Worms of some kind into both bugs and cows would be more accurate, I think.
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
Andrew Stallard said:
Robert Byers said:
Natural selection is impossible as a mechanism to have tuned bugs into many stomach cows.
Complexity is so wonderful that as Darwin admited it requires quite a lot to prove evolution.
To creates millions of advantages is just unlikely and myth like to explain the complexity of biology.
It truly seems silly it ever was accepted in the circles that did.
Dear Mr. Byers:
Could you please explain to us what this ineffable, mysterious quantity called "complexity" actually is. Tell us what its dimensions are, whether it is an intensive or extensive property, and how we measure or calculate it. Provide some simple examples with ordinary objects to help us get a handle on it. I've asked some other creationists on this board and others to do this, and none of them has bothered to try. Are you up to it?
Complexity is obvious in nature or machines. ,
To deny what is before ones eyes is deny brillance.
If complexity was not the stuff of biology then there would not be the medical problems that we all suffer from.
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
John Kwok said:
Sorry Booby, on the contrary, Darwin didn't demonstrate that:
Robert Byers said:
Complexity is so wonderful that as Darwin admited it requires quite a lot to prove evolution.
To creates millions of advantages is just unlikely and myth like to explain the complexity of biology.
It truly seems silly it ever was accepted in the circles that did.
Instead, building upon brilliant insights he obtained by studying artifical selection, as noted in his "On the Origin of Species", he demonstrated how simple and elegant and easy a process Natural Selection is. So much so, he was able to conclude with utmost sincerity and poetic elegance, as the final sentence of this book:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
No. Artifical selection is chump change in any attempt to show the origin of fantastic glorious complexity of beings and materials.
Its surely just wild extrapolation.
Complexity of biology demands a complexity of evidfence that evolution could even do much and then a complexity of evidence that it did.
It really is a strange myth to see trillions of errors building such intelligent biology of life.
If you think about carefully.
Dave Luckett · 6 May 2010
Shorter Byers: "Complexity is a word I use that sounds sciency. It means whatever I mean it to mean, supposing I have any idea of what that is."
Shorter Byers II: "I haven't the vaguest idea of how natural selection works, but I don't believe in it, so there."
So Byers, what research have you done to make you come to the conclusion that you arrogantly assume to know better than all of the scientists in the world about biology and paleontology?
John Kwok · 6 May 2010
Now I know my initial hunch about you was absolutely right. You've been assimilated by the Dishonesty Institute Borg Collective:
Robert Byers said:
John Kwok said:
Sorry Booby, on the contrary, Darwin didn't demonstrate that:
Robert Byers said:
Complexity is so wonderful that as Darwin admited it requires quite a lot to prove evolution.
To creates millions of advantages is just unlikely and myth like to explain the complexity of biology.
It truly seems silly it ever was accepted in the circles that did.
Instead, building upon brilliant insights he obtained by studying artifical selection, as noted in his "On the Origin of Species", he demonstrated how simple and elegant and easy a process Natural Selection is. So much so, he was able to conclude with utmost sincerity and poetic elegance, as the final sentence of this book:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
No. Artifical selection is chump change in any attempt to show the origin of fantastic glorious complexity of beings and materials.
Its surely just wild extrapolation.
Complexity of biology demands a complexity of evidfence that evolution could even do much and then a complexity of evidence that it did.
It really is a strange myth to see trillions of errors building such intelligent biology of life.
If you think about carefully.
Judging from your latest example of breathtaking inanity, you are enjoying your membership in the Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective.
Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),
John Kwok
30 Comments
Henry J · 26 April 2010
Sea lion? That mean it's closer related to lions than to other seals? ;)
Harold · 27 April 2010
I am going to the Galapagos in July, can't wait to see these and other creatures.
Anyone know of a good picture resource about Galapagos insects and creepy crawlies?
The Curmudgeon · 27 April 2010
By golly, that looks like a transitional species.
Alan B · 27 April 2010
That's not a sea lion: there's no red ball on its nose ...
(Sorry - been a bad day ...)
Henry J · 27 April 2010
Robert Byers · 27 April 2010
This isn't a transitional species but rather it shows the true orbit of diversity.
It simply is a type of these creatures that came into being almost instantly soon after the flood.
In fact there are many more types in the fossil record that are now extinct and certainly there were possibly hundreds of types with different details.
It been a error of evolutionism to see trails of origin in species and not rather the more likely conclusion that diversity is instant , and very flexible without any need to see connections.
Seals etc show today a remnant of original diversity and that its origin is innate adaptation almost instantly.
Stanton · 27 April 2010
I would ask Mr Byers if he could provide proof to support his inane ramblings, but, that is pointless and futile.
One gets the impression that he deliberately wants everyone to assume that he is a lobotomized religious idiot who has uncontrollable verbal diarrhea.
Henry J · 28 April 2010
My version of that joke was more concise than Byers' version. And I knew that it was a joke when posting it.
Paul Burnett · 30 April 2010
Dave Luckett · 1 May 2010
David Fickett-Wilbar · 1 May 2010
Henry J · 1 May 2010
Robert Byers · 2 May 2010
DS · 2 May 2010
There is no evidence in the fossil and living record of any great flood or ark. So how to explain this when it was not observed? Obviously you don't have to.
Stanton · 2 May 2010
John Kwok · 3 May 2010
Robert Byers · 4 May 2010
Dave Luckett · 4 May 2010
Andrew Stallard · 4 May 2010
Stanton · 4 May 2010
John Kwok · 4 May 2010
John Kwok · 4 May 2010
stevaroni · 4 May 2010
MrG · 4 May 2010
Henry J · 4 May 2010
And of course "bugs into cows" ignores the known cladistic relationships. Worms of some kind into both bugs and cows would be more accurate, I think.
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
Robert Byers · 6 May 2010
Dave Luckett · 6 May 2010
Shorter Byers: "Complexity is a word I use that sounds sciency. It means whatever I mean it to mean, supposing I have any idea of what that is."
Shorter Byers II: "I haven't the vaguest idea of how natural selection works, but I don't believe in it, so there."
Stanton · 6 May 2010
So Byers, what research have you done to make you come to the conclusion that you arrogantly assume to know better than all of the scientists in the world about biology and paleontology?
John Kwok · 6 May 2010