Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[Astrophile]

Are you telling me lions had no flesh eating teeth and gazelles were slower than elephants?

What about snakes? They are so perfectly adapted to a carnivorous life that there are no herbivorous snakes at all.

 

[nPeace]

I am always nice to people. Not necessarily to their arguments. If they identify with their arguments, it is not my problem.


I try to be always respectful with people.

Great.

Have you ever seen the teeth of a lion or a shark? Can you imagine a shark eating lettuce?
Is that where your creationist desperation is taking you? Lions, crocodiles and sharks ruminating like cows in heaven? LOL

We know that adaption take place right.
According to evolution theory sharks did not have teeth millions of years ago.
So if you can accept that they evolved into meat eaters, it should be easier to accept that plant eating sharks created by the grand designer, can adapt to meat eaters.
All that requires is teeth growth.

Check this out. Instinct?
Plant-Eating Sharks Actually Exist?

Right now, I have a tooth twice the length of the others.
Of course, it didn't adapt to eat meat, but to fill a space.
Interestingly its growth accelerated only after I stopped using it.
Its days are numbered.

What perspective? It is obvious that lions are designed to kill antelopes and antelopes are designed to avoid to be eaten. You think there is a conscious designer that did that. I think that designer would be rather silly.

So, it should be self evident, that this is the result of a naturalistic arm races between predators and prays, without any teleology involved.

Hmm...
I look forward to the video tape recording that proves this.
I think if it were observe, we would have no questions... but that "Why?" word never goes away.
There are many things we don't know, and one guess is as good as another.

Speaking of which.... What do you guess will happen to the earth? Do you think it will end as speculated - big crunch; big freeze. Or are you optimistic about a surprisingly good end?
Or maybe you are like some who reason that it really doesn't matter, because you'll be dead anyway?

The problem, of course, is that the tales on the Bible have the same evidence of the stories on a fairy tale. So, it is not clear to me why we should give more intellectual respect to one than to the other.

Is it because more people believe in Jesus than Pinocchio and it is therefore more politically incorrect to ridicule the former?

Ciao

- viole

Honestly, I don't think there is any comparison between the myth presented to explain the birth of the universe, and the birth of life, and its continuation. I find it quite hilarious - no joke. I am so serious.
Did you know...
BIG BANG BIRTHED FROM COSMIC EGG
Monsignor Georges Lemaître was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, physicist and astronomer. He is usually credited with the first definitive formulation of the idea of an expanding universe and what was to become known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which Lemaître himself called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom” or the “Cosmic Egg”.
.............
Later in 1931, at a meeting of the British Association in London to discuss the relationship between the physical universe and spirituality, Lemaître first voiced his proposal that the universe had expanded from an initial point, which he called the "primeval atom" or "the Cosmic Egg, exploding at the moment of the creation", a theme he developed further in a report published in the journal “Nature” later that year.

Lemaître argued that, if matter is everywhere receding, it would seem natural to suppose that in the distant past it was closer together, and that, if we go far enough back, we reach a time at which the entire universe was in an extremely compact and compressed state.
.............
...his model of the origin of the Universe from a ‘Cosmic Egg’ is the ‘hatching out’ or ‘birth’ of not only an expanding universe but also all that it contains—all the material from which the stars formed. Lemaître’s ‘Cosmic Egg’ was later called the singularity and that has its own problems.8 But the concept of the origin from an egg is a pagan concept.
...............

Now read up on this ancient Chinese myth.
Pangu - Wikipedia
In the beginning, there was nothing....

Hmmm...
The Bible is so coherent, from start to finish that if God is not responsible for it, then the men that came up with the concept, the characters, the ideals, the whole script win the Oscar every time, and they deserve the highest honor.

However, I know that's not the case because the true author gets the glory, and it's not men.
To me, the Bible is far from being a fairy tale.
I'm not saying this out of fanaticism - I see it. I live it. It's an experience that you know is real.

 

[Audie]

What about snakes? They are so perfectly adapted to a carnivorous life that there are no herbivorous snakes at all.

There are a lot of plants on land so one can
kind of imagine all the animals going about
eating plants

In the ocean, there is phytoplankton. Tiny,
single cell algae. Thete is no way for large
creatures to eat them.

People who know some marine biology will
point to minor exceptions such ss Galapagos
Iguanas eating kelp.

Algae, though, are the base of the food chain.

 

[Audie]

You post five pages of mostly cut and pasted stuff. You want to call that a contribution.

I respond by pointing out errors in your arguments. That's what happens in a debate. It wouldn't be much of a debate if I agreed with everything you posted. At least I took the time to actually read and understand some of the things you posted. That's more than you did. You saw an article written by a Creationist and cut and pasted from it without understanding what the author was actually saying.

You call me nasty and insulting and say you are going to ignore me. That's the cop out that is often used by people when others have the audacity to call them out.

OK, ignore me.

Now now it is not just a cop out.

It proves something: Creo good, evo bad.
Too, it is a chance to suffer abuse for Jesus.

And, how fearfully he did suffer your slings
and arrows!

 

[Astrophile]

Honestly, I don't think there is any comparison between the myth presented to explain the birth of the universe, and the birth of life, and its continuation. I find it quite hilarious - no joke. I am so serious.
Did you know...
BIG BANG BIRTHED FROM COSMIC EGG
Monsignor Georges Lemaître was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, physicist and astronomer. He is usually credited with the first definitive formulation of the idea of an expanding universe and what was to become known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which Lemaître himself called his “hypothesis of the primeval atom” or the “Cosmic Egg”.
.............
Later in 1931, at a meeting of the British Association in London to discuss the relationship between the physical universe and spirituality, Lemaître first voiced his proposal that the universe had expanded from an initial point, which he called the "primeval atom" or "the Cosmic Egg, exploding at the moment of the creation", a theme he developed further in a report published in the journal “Nature” later that year.

Lemaître argued that, if matter is everywhere receding, it would seem natural to suppose that in the distant past it was closer together, and that, if we go far enough back, we reach a time at which the entire universe was in an extremely compact and compressed state.

You have been very selective in your quotations from your link - Georges Lemaître - Important Scientists - The Physics of the Universe. You have omitted the paragraphs (below) that explain how Lemaître found solutions to Einstein's equations of relativity that described an expanding rather than a static universe, and how the validity of these solutions was confirmed by Hubble's discovery of the recession of the galaxies. Lemaître's cosmology is thus soundly based both on physical theory and on empirical data; it has no resemblance to creation myths.

In 1927, he discovered a family of solutions to Einstein's field equations of relativity that described not a static universe, but an expanding universe (as, independently, had the Russian Alexander Friedmann in 1922). The report which would eventually bring him international fame, entitled “A homogeneous universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae” in translation, was published later in 1927 in the little known journal “Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles”. In this report, he presented his new idea of an expanding universe, and also derived the first statement of what would later become known as Hubble’s Law(that the outward speed of distant objects in the universe is proportional to their distance from us), and provided the first observational estimation of the Hubble constant.
In 1929, after nearly a decade of observations, Edwin Hubble published his definitive report that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance, effectively confirming Lemaître’s prediction of an expanding universe. However, Lemaître's model of the universe received little notice until it was publicized by the prominent English astronomer Arthur Eddington, who described it as a "brilliant solution" to the outstanding problems of cosmology, and arranged for Lemaître’s theory to be translated and reprinted in the “Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society” in 1931.

I may add here that Lemaître's original paper can be found online, and that, for my own satisfaction, I have downloaded it and translated part of it into English. If you are really interested, you can do the same thing.

...........

...his model of the origin of the Universe from a ‘Cosmic Egg’ is the ‘hatching out’ or ‘birth’ of not only an expanding universe but also all that it contains—all the material from which the stars formed. Le maître’s ‘Cosmic Egg’ was later called the singularity and that has its own problems.8 But the concept of the origin from an egg is a pagan concept.

This paragraph does not appear to be part of your link. I don't know where you got it from.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have been very selective in your quotations from your link - Georges Lemaître - Important Scientists - The Physics of the Universe. You have omitted the paragraphs (below) that explain how Lemaître found solutions to Einstein's equations of relativity that described an expanding rather than a static universe, and how the validity of these solutions was confirmed by Hubble's discovery of the recession of the galaxies. Lemaître's cosmology is thus soundly based both on physical theory and on empirical data; it has no resemblance to creation myths.



I may add here that Lemaître's original paper can be found online, and that, for my own satisfaction, I have downloaded it and translated part of it into English. If you are really interested, you can do the same thing.

...........


This paragraph does not appear to be part of your link. I don't know where you got it from.

Busted:

Big bang birthed from Cosmic Egg

He tends to use bogus sources. He tried to make it look like a valid one, but he did not edit out the creationist nonsense properly.

 

[nPeace]

You have been very selective in your quotations from your link - Georges Lemaître - Important Scientists - The Physics of the Universe. You have omitted the paragraphs (below) that explain how Lemaître found solutions to Einstein's equations of relativity that described an expanding rather than a static universe, and how the validity of these solutions was confirmed by Hubble's discovery of the recession of the galaxies. Lemaître's cosmology is thus soundly based both on physical theory and on empirical data; it has no resemblance to creation myths.



I may add here that Lemaître's original paper can be found online, and that, for my own satisfaction, I have downloaded it and translated part of it into English. If you are really interested, you can do the same thing.

...........


This paragraph does not appear to be part of your link. I don't know where you got it from.

Thanks.
I had started writing this a month or two ago, so I might have gotten a few things mixed up, and I did not review it.
I think some information was taken from Wikipedia.

I should really have tidied it up, so let me do so now.
World egg - Wikipedia
...Typically, the world egg is a beginning of some sort, and the universe or some primordial being comes into existence by "hatching" from the egg, sometimes lain on the primordial waters of the Earth.
[The many myths of this idea are mentioned in the article]

Big bang birthed from Cosmic Egg
In 1931, Lemaître described the Universe as exploding from a ‘Cosmic Egg’, which was like a giant atom, with all the mass of the Universe. His idea was that the myriads of galaxies of stars in the Universe formed out of and expanded out from that initial state of the ‘Cosmic Egg’. Lemaître imagined that the Universe started from a fluctuation of his first quantum of energy (his ‘Cosmic Egg’) when space and time were not yet defined.

This quote:

his model of the origin of the Universe from a ‘Cosmic Egg’ is the ‘hatching out’ or ‘birth’ of not only an expanding universe but also all that it contains—all the material from which the stars formed. Lemaître’s ‘Cosmic Egg’ was later called the singularity and that has its own problems.8 But the concept of the origin from an egg is a pagan concept.

is found in the same article under figure 3.

Big Bang - Wikipedia
The Belgian astronomer and Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed on theoretical grounds that the universe is expanding, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble. In 1927 in the Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles (Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels) under the title "Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques" ("A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae"), he presented his new idea that the universe is expanding and provided the first observational estimation of what is known as the Hubble constant. What later will be known as the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe, he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg"

My reason for mentioning this, was not to mention how scientists find solutions to fit ideas, but to show how their ideas do stem from myths.

We can use myths to come up with stories of our own, and those stories can appear to be real. Isn't that so?
Giving an explanation for something we observe doesn't mean that the explanation is correct. Is that not so?

The egg myth, does not require a chicken, but in reality there is a need to explain where the egg came from.

 

[Astrophile]

Busted:

Big bang birthed from Cosmic Egg

He tends to use bogus sources. He tried to make it look like a valid one, but he did not edit out the creationist nonsense properly.

Thank-you. I suspected something like this.

 

[nPeace]

Thank-you. I suspected something like this.

People tend to believe what they want. Some people even believe lies.
Do you know why most skeptic debater here usually complain about persons using bogus sources?
It's allows them an excuse to avoid responding to what they can't debate. My posts always include credible sources that I use to support what I say.

Because of this, you know what the skeptics then do?
They make the most ridiculous sickening argument I have ever heard from a debater. "Oh. You only know how to copy and paste, but you have no idea what the information is saying."
So they become mind readers.
I'm not the only one they have done it with. They do it all the time.
I think this is just a false show of strength to cover up weakness - a false show of intelligence.

Is Wikipedia a bogus site? I always try to use it.
Another thing these skeptics do which I hate, is accuse a person of being dishonest.
I cut out paragraphs to avoid a long post,
When I post a long page because I think cutting out certain material might not be appropriate - the skeptics complain about its length.


What is the truth from the lie?

 

[Astrophile]

Thanks.
I had started writing this a month or two ago, so I might have gotten a few things mixed up, and I did not review it.
I think some information was taken from Wikipedia.

I should really have tidied it up, so let me do so now.
World egg - Wikipedia
...Typically, the world egg is a beginning of some sort, and the universe or some primordial being comes into existence by "hatching" from the egg, sometimes lain on the primordial waters of the Earth.
[The many myths of this idea are mentioned in the article]

Big bang birthed from Cosmic Egg
In 1931, Lemaître described the Universe as exploding from a ‘Cosmic Egg’, which was like a giant atom, with all the mass of the Universe. His idea was that the myriads of galaxies of stars in the Universe formed out of and expanded out from that initial state of the ‘Cosmic Egg’. Lemaître imagined that the Universe started from a fluctuation of his first quantum of energy (his ‘Cosmic Egg’) when space and time were not yet defined.

This quote:
is found in the same article under figure 3.

Thank-you for your polite reply. I have read your link Big bang birthed from Cosmic Egg, but I do not find it satisfactory. Specifically, it gives a mere two paragraphs (at the beginning of the section 'Hubble received Lemaître's accolades') to the theoretical and observational evidence for Lemaître's cosmology, and does not give any scientific reasons for rejecting this evidence. Instead it explains how Lemaître was cheated out of the credit for the discovery of the expanding universe, which is interesting, but not relevant to the question of the validity of his cosmological theory, throws a few vague accusations at the Jesuits and the Church of Rome, and then plunges into six paragraphs of mythological thinking about 'cosmic eggs', which, in my opinion, have no more in common with Lemaître's 'primeval atom' and big bang cosmology than the 'atoms' of Leucippus and Democritus have in common with modern quantum theory.

Big Bang - Wikipedia
The Belgian astronomer and Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed on theoretical grounds that the universe is expanding, which was observationally confirmed soon afterwards by Edwin Hubble. In 1927 in the Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles (Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels) under the title "Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques" ("A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae"), he presented his new idea that the universe is expanding and provided the first observational estimation of what is known as the Hubble constant. What later will be known as the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe, he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg"

I don't want to keep harping on this trifling point, but when I was learning about astronomy in the 1960s, the books that I read referred to Lemaître's cosmology in terms of a 'primeval atom', not of a 'cosmic egg'. Of course, this was 50 or 60 years ago, and I can't say that the phrase 'cosmic egg' was never used, but most of my books definitely referred to a 'primeval atom'. Also, the reference in Wikipedia for this statement - A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries: Big bang theory is introduced - doesn't use the phrase 'cosmic egg'.

My reason for mentioning this, was not to mention how scientists find solutions to fit ideas, but to show how their ideas do stem from myths.

No, I don't agree. As your own link - Big bang birthed from Cosmic Egg - explains, Lemaître's theory of an expanding universe was based on his solutions of Einstein's field equations and on observations of the recession of the galaxies, not on creation myths. Your link is confusing words with things; it is trying to make out that Lemaître's use of the phrase 'cosmic egg' implies that his theory was based on mythological ideas or that the theory of the expanding universe is essentially the same as the myth of the origin of the universe from some sort of egg.

We can use myths to come up with stories of our own, and those stories can appear to be real. Isn't that so?
Giving an explanation for something we observe doesn't mean that the explanation is correct. Is that not so?

This is true, but scientific explanations can be tested by requiring them to make predictions, whereas myths cannot. The more facts a scientific theory explains, and the more valid predictions it makes, the more likely it is that is near to the truth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People tend to believe what they want. Some people even believe lies.
Do you know why most skeptic debater here usually complain about persons using bogus sources?
It's allows them an excuse to avoid responding to what they can't debate. My posts always include credible sources that I use to support what I say.

Because of this, you know what the skeptics then do?
They make the most ridiculous sickening argument I have ever heard from a debater. "Oh. You only know how to copy and paste, but you have no idea what the information is saying."
So they become mind readers.
I'm not the only one they have done it with. They do it all the time.
I think this is just a false show of strength to cover up weakness - a false show of intelligence.

Is Wikipedia a bogus site? I always try to use it.
Another thing these skeptics do which I hate, is accuse a person of being dishonest.
I cut out paragraphs to avoid a long post,
When I post a long page because I think cutting out certain material might not be appropriate - the skeptics complain about its length.


What is the truth from the lie?

That is false. Sometimes we get tired of lying sources. I have said more than once that it is fine to get ideas from dishonest sources, but you need to be able to support them with valid ones. That you can't find valid sources to support should tell you something.

 

[ecco]

The egg myth, does not require a chicken, but in reality there is a need to explain where the egg came from.

 

[ecco]

Do you know why most skeptic debater here usually complain about persons using bogus sources?
It's allows them an excuse to avoid responding to what they can't debate. My posts always include credible sources that I use to support what I say.

Because of this, you know what the skeptics then do?
They make the most ridiculous sickening argument I have ever heard from a debater. "Oh. You only know how to copy and paste, but you have no idea what the information is saying."

You must be referring to me. I pointed out several instances where you made extensive cut and paste posts. Some without attribution. Some of which did not support your argument. This shows that you did not read or could not understand what was written.

All of which attests to the fact that your arguments are unsupported and you have to resort to dishonesty and plagiarism.

I see it for what it is and I tell you I do. For you to backdoor whine about it to another poster is just another example of who you are and what you represent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You must be referring to me. I pointed out several instances where you made extensive cut and paste posts. Some without attribution. Some of which did not support your argument. This shows that you did not read or could not understand what was written.

All of which attests to the fact that your arguments are unsupported and you have to resort to dishonesty and plagiarism.

I see it for what it is and I tell you I do. For you to backdoor whine about it to another poster is just another example of who you are and what you represent.

You weren't the only one to comment on the sources that he uses and how he uses them. If one person makes such a comment then one may be justified in ignoring it. But when others point out the same bad behavior it is time to take stock of one's strategy.

 

[nPeace]

You must be referring to me. I pointed out several instances where you made extensive cut and paste posts. Some without attribution. Some of which did not support your argument. This shows that you did not read or could not understand what was written.

All of which attests to the fact that your arguments are unsupported and you have to resort to dishonesty and plagiarism.

I see it for what it is and I tell you I do. For you to backdoor whine about it to another poster is just another example of who you are and what you represent.

Since it is true that you

pointed out several instances where you made extensive cut and paste posts. Some without attribution. Some of which did not support your argument. This shows that you did not read or could not understand what was written.

then it shouldn't be difficult for you to point out where you did that, right?
Show me one.

 

[Bear Wild]

I just read again Darwin's "Origin of Species" after many years and I am still amazed at the insight that Charles Darwin and for that matter Alfred Russel Wallace had. There could never be any doubt after his careful observations and conclusions as to how life diversified. Everything since his theory was introduced has only further confirmed and identified the mechanisms to support his Idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since it is true that you
then it shouldn't be difficult for you to point out where you did that, right?
Show me one.

I did in this one:
Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

@Astrophile pointed out that you had been rather choosy in which parts of an article to quote and that there was a quote that was not found in the article. You quoted a creationist source but linked only the source that the creationists quoted in a way that was close to being quote mining. You should have attributed the actual source that you used if you were going to quote from it.

 

[nPeace]

I just read again Darwin's "Origin of Species" after many years and I am still amazed at the insight that Charles Darwin and for that matter Alfred Russel Wallace had. There could never be any doubt after his careful observations and conclusions as to how life diversified. Everything since his theory was introduced has only further confirmed and identified the mechanisms to support his Idea.

Yes, many people are fascinated with his ideas.
Many people don't agree though, that everything confirms his ideas.
They still haven't found those "missing links" the earth was supposed to be saturated with, and they discovered that living things are more complex than Darwin hoped, or visioned.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, many people are fascinated with his ideas.
Many people don't agree though, that everything confirms his ideas.
They still haven't found those "missing links" the earth was supposed to be saturated with, and they discovered that living things are more complex than Darwin hoped, or visioned.

It appears that only the willfully ignorant oppose the theory. And "missing links" is a creationist idea. It is a misnomer for "transitional fossils" and there are countless transitional fossils. Creationists hate her and lie about her all of the time, but for human evolution Lucy stands out. But since you like videos so much:

 

[ecco]

You weren't the only one to comment on the sources that he uses and how he uses them. If one person makes such a comment then one may be justified in ignoring it. But when others point out the same bad behavior it is time to take stock of one's strategy.

Because of this, you know what the skeptics then do?
They make the most ridiculous sickening argument I have ever heard from a debater. "Oh. You only know how to copy and paste, but you have no idea what the information is saying."
So they become mind readers.
I'm not the only one they have done it with. They do it all the time.

Yep. WE do it all the time. It's OUR fault that he does what he does and that WE point it out.


ETA: Looking back over the last five pages, there are about five people to whom his above comment applies to.