Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

[Mr_Wilford]

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Oh sweet baby Jesus...please, someone shoot me.

 

[Rumraket]

Welp, as expected Bernhard posts a brainless and incoherent mess, chock full on assertions of what he should be trying to prove. Zero references to anything. Misuse of terms. Operating on basic misunderstandings etc. etc.

Total clusterfuck, the quintessential chess with a pigeon example.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Oy, DutchLiam84, he failed to use the quote function. Where's my Internet monies?

 

[Collecemall]

He some how wants evidence without having to evaluate any evidence. Just give him what he wants already. You can't do that? Evolution is false!!!!

 

[Mugnuts]

That first Bernhard post was just sad.

What I got out of that is...

"You have to talk/type why it's true and any resource you use/post/link will be ignored... because that's not how I play. Any person who has worked/trained/studied their entire career in the relevant field where the evidence was tested, observed, documented, re-tested, and made it through the gauntlet... of peer review still doesn't cut it.... stating something is a logical fallacy makes it one...even when it actually isn't ...but hey I want to make the rules here.

Dogs are dogs because they are not horses because horses are always horses... anyone can see that. Therefore no evolution.

I don't understand why your recent articles can claim they have... proved macro evolution because none of them do...it's not like I would understand that all the studies that could be presented actually... are a concordant line of evidence leading to a single conclusion. No where is there any evidence of... what I define as macro evolution.

SO bring it on...if you don't have a Monkopottamus, then I win..."

 

[SpecialFrog]

It has previously been established that Bernhard doesn't accept that probabilities are relevant to science. Either a piece of evidence leads deductively to a proof of evolution or it is not evidence.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

It has previously been established that Bernhard doesn't accept that probabilities are relevant to science. Either a piece of evidence leads deductively to a proof of evolution or it is not evidence.

Careful, he'll quote mine you like he did Aron

 

[IBSpify]

It's commonly accepted that dogs are descended from wolves, so ask him if dogs are still wolves.

I know he'll reject the assertion, but at least you can get him stuck in his own logic of everything is still what it was.

 

[DutchLiam84]

What the hell did I just read?

I didn't say learn in the first post itsdemtitans, no internet money for you yet!

However:

Will Bernard finally learn how to use the "quote"-function PROPERLY?
Yes 3.9 DL84(20)
No 1.1 HWIN(25) keeper541(33) Inferno(25) itsdemtitans(50)

How long does it take before hackenslash becomes frustrated and insults Bernard?
1 post 1.01
2 posts 1.5 red(100)
3 posts 3
4 posts 5
More 10 DL84(50)
No insult 15 HWIN(50) Collecemall(100) keeper541(34) Inferno(50) itsdemtitans(25)

Will Bernard be able to have three "your" and/or "you're" 's correct in a row?
Yes 2.7 DL84(20) keeper541(33)
No 1.2 HWIN(25) Inferno(25)

I receive 54 units and keeper541 receives 89 units
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Bernard finally learn how to use the "quote"-function PROPERLY?
Yes 3.9 DL84(20)
No 1.1 HWIN(25) keeper541(33) Inferno(25) itsdemtitans(50)

How long does it take before hackenslash becomes frustrated and insults Bernard?
1 post 1.01
2 posts 1.5 red(100)
3 posts 3
4 posts 5
More 10 DL84(50)
No insult 15 HWIN(50) Collecemall(100) keeper541(34) Inferno(50) itsdemtitans(25)

Will Bernard be able to have three "your" and/or "you're" 's correct in a row?
Yes 2.7 DL84(20) keeper541(33)
No 1.2 HWIN(25) Inferno(25)

New question, if you put all your money in the first round you can't make another bet:
Will Bernard be able to have 2 correct could have/should have/would have's in a row? Thanks to Dragan Glas. Good odds with this one!
Yes 7
No 4 DL84(50)

Place your new bet, if you're able!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Put me down for 50 that he'll fail my suggestion, DutchLiam84.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

But we all get to see Lucy at the smithsonian, which has been so thoroughly debunked it's ridiculous it's still there.

:docpalm:

Lucy has not been debunked, nor is it at the Smithsonian. A replica could be there (they are common in many museums), but the actual fossil is in Ethiopia.

Now back to ignoring Bernhard.visscher and only reading what is quoted from him.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Will Bernard finally learn how to use the "quote"-function PROPERLY?
Yes 3.9 DL84(20)
No 1.1 HWIN(25) keeper541(33) Inferno(25) itsdemtitans(50)

How long does it take before hackenslash becomes frustrated and insults Bernard?
1 post 1.01
2 posts 1.5 red(100)
3 posts 3
4 posts 5
More 10 DL84(50)
No insult 15 HWIN(50) Collecemall(100) keeper541(34) Inferno(50) itsdemtitans(25)

Will Bernard be able to have three "your" and/or "you're" 's correct in a row?
Yes 2.7 DL84(20) keeper541(33) WON
No 1.2 HWIN(25) Inferno(25)

Will Bernard be able to have 2 correct could have/should have/would have's in a row?
Yes 7
No 4 DL84(50) Dragan Glas(50)

 

[Dustnite]

Tides go in, tides go out. CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

What the hell did I just read?

Reminds me of when I worked in the UK years ago, we had a new fellow - French Lebanese - join us. On one occasion he said something of a similar nature. Another colleague sent a email round the IT department repeating what the new fellow said - in large, red letters. After the quote, he'd added: "I thought if I put it in large, red letters, it'd make sense. It still doesn't!" :lol:

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

But we all get to see Lucy at the smithsonian, which has been so thoroughly debunked it's ridiculous it's still there.

Lucy has not been debunked, nor is it at the Smithsonian. A replica could be there (they are common in many museums), but the actual fossil is in Ethiopia.

Now back to ignoring Bernhard.visscher and only reading what is quoted from him.

Lucy has been "debunked" because she isn't our direct ancestor (which is what Bernhard thinks is being claimed). It's just part of his continued claim that transitional species don't count unless they are our direct ancestor, despite agreeing with other statements from which the conclusion, "therefore the direct transitional species must have existed" follows through simple logic.

 

[red]

New question, if you put all your money in the first round you can't make another bet:
Will Bernard be able to have 2 correct could have/should have/would have's in a row? Thanks to Dragan Glas. Good odds with this one!
Yes 7
No 4 DL84(50)
Place your new bet, if you're able!

A bookmaker can only lose money on a 2 horse race if both odds generate a return greater than the outlay.
Has someone failed maths or do we imply a connection to the bookmaker?

 

[Mugnuts]

Just thought I'd put this here...

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Just thought I'd put this here...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Well I'm bored soooo, let's pick apart Bernies little argument on fossils, as if that needed to be done. :lol: :lol: :lol:

According to Darwin transistional fossils are needed, none are found. The obvious method to combat this is to call everything transistional, but that is semantics. Like you do by claiming since I look like a hybrid of my parents therefore evolution. No not evolution, genetic variation. I am just as human as my parents, great grandparents, great great, etc. Now the question because of evolutionary semantics becomes do you have evidence for a direct ancestor transistional fossil? The answer is no... You can argue that.. But every claimed transistional has been so systematically debunked, that evolutionists go into smaller and smaller evidence like DNA (you) and other evidences that the regular person has no access to..

Maybe I'll need some Tylenol for this...

According to Darwin transistional fossils are needed, none are found.

Wrong, but his entire argument hinges upon the claim that a fossil must be a direct ancestor to be transitional. This is not the case. Unlike modern taxa which are classified genetically, it's very rare to find compete, sequencable DNA in fossils, especially past a few million years. Because of this, one has to classify fossil species morphologically. The order their arranged in on charts and such are meant to show the progression of traits becoming more specialized to a certain environment.

My favorite example (probably because I'm striving to work with dolphins down in the Keys)is the whale lineage. There are many fossils in this order that qualify as transitional. E.g Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, etc.

I'll say this up front, we can't ever know where these forms are exactly in relationship to each other, and most are certainly not direct ancestors. Does that invalidate them. Contrary to what Bernie thinks, NO!!! These fossils show a clear progression of morphological traits, such as the inner ear becoming more and more specialized for life in the water, vertebrate becoming more compact and strong to support a muscular tail used to paddle, reduction of hind limbs, and probably the most obvious, nasal drift. Also, these fossils are found in a particular order in the fossil record, showing the linear progression of traits and further supporting their status as transitional.

YEC can't explain these facts at all. OEC tried, I think Hugh Ross specifically, but he said the fossils and their traits reflected not evolution but whales going extinct but God making more, which he updated the features. Good try, but....

The obvious method to combat this is to call everything transistional, but that is semantics.

Technically everything is transitional, especially leading up to speciation events.

Like you do by claiming since I look like a hybrid of my parents therefore evolution. No not evolution, genetic variation. I am just as human as my parents, great grandparents, great great, etc.

Hackenslash was using that example to explain how the mechanisms of genetic variation worked. He later applied it to evolution to make his point. I get the feeling Bernie skimmed his post.

Now the question because of evolutionary semantics becomes do you have evidence for a direct ancestor transistional fossil?

We don't need direct ancestors for a fossil to be marked transitional, but we do have them in the Radiolaria microfossil record. No wonder he ignored it completely. I'll expand on that below.

The answer is no...

Aside from the fact that the defenition of a transitional fossil is strictly morphological and says nothing of it's exact place in relation to other lineages, he's dead wrong about no direct ancestors. I pointed out the microfossil record of radiolaria in the original "evolution is a fact" thread and he conveniently ignored it. But I'll repost here

http://www.donaldprothero.com/files/47440094.pdf

Abstract:

Many cladistic systematists consider hypotheses of ancestor-descendant relationship untestable in fossils. Although fossil preservation is never complete enough to know which fossil population is actually ancestral, theoretically it is possible to sample the ancestral population. If all potentially ancestral populations were sampled, then some members of the actual ancestral population must be contained in the sample. Preservation of most vertebrate and macroinvertebrate fossils is notoriously spotty. However, marine microfossil sequences are the most complete available in the fossil record. Since most planktonic microorganisms have biogeographic distributions that closely correspond to the extent of major water masses, it is possible to sample each population by sampling the water masses. Lack of preservation due to non-deposition, erosion, or dissolution can generally be recognized. We can tell if absence of a form from an area is real or due to lack of preservation. Piston cores from the entire world ocean are available for all the water masses since the late Miocene. Their stratigraphy can be carefully worked out by at least three independent means of correlation, and in some cases these cores faithfully record events spaced only hundreds of years apart. Thus, in certain pelagic microfossils it is possible to sample all populations that have existed through millions of years, and be confident that no forms of interest remain unsampled. Therefore, the marine microfossil record can meet the criteria necessary to recognize ancestors. An example from the Radiolaria is discussed.<i></i>

That blows Bernhard's entire canard out of the water. It's no wonder he ignored it.

You can argue that.. But every claimed transistional has been so systematically debunked,

Wrong. Oh so laughably wrong :lol:

that evolutionists go into smaller and smaller evidence like DNA (you) and other evidences that the regular person has no access to..

DNA is the single best proof for evolution, and you do have access to it if you read the scientific literature.

That aside, that was the single worst dismissal of evidence I've ever seen, aside from "telomeres don't fuse!!"

It can basically be summed up as:

"LOL you just present dna evidence because you have no evidence, so the dna is wrong I don't have to look at it because no evidence "


If this is Bernie's A game, we're in for a headache of a debate.