Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 8
 [ 150 posts ] 
Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash
Author Message
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

itsdemtitans wrote:Can anyone address his claims about Tiktaalik? Or should I email Neil Shubin his claims and get his take?

Some of it is just based on is pretend definition of "transitional". For instance, the possible tetrapod footprints found elsewhere (and dated earlier) are interesting but irrelevant to Tiktaalik's status as a significant transitional fossil.

Tiktaalik shows that transitional forms between fish and tetrapods existed. Whether it is the earliest example of this transition or whether modern tetrapods are actually descended from Tiktaalik is secondary. Tiktaalik may one day be "humiliated" like Archaeopteryx and we may have better examples. So what?

As for the "quality" stuff, it sounds like bollocks. I suspect the "some science article" he claims supports him doesn't do so.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:40 pm
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

Actually, Casey Luskin made the claim it was poor. That's right, the same one who lied about Ken Miller's stance on Chromosome 2.

Pandas thumb did an article on it
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/10/the-rise-of-ign.html
Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:44 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

itsdemtitans wrote:Actually, Casey Luskin made the claim it was poor. That's right, the same one who lied about Ken Miller's stance on Chromosome 2.

Pandas thumb did an article on it
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/10/the-rise-of-ign.html

Thanks. Good to know where the source of the current nonsense claims.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:58 pm
CollecemallPosts: 360Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

He really can't be so obtuse can he? I vacillate between anger and pity when reading his posts. Is it really that difficult to read the articles you post for someone else to read? I think the new bet should be if Hack ends the debate now. I have no monies to bet but I suspect he won't waste much more time on nonsense.
"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time."
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire
Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:12 pm
DutchLiam84User avatarPosts: 382Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:27 pmLocation: Eurasian Plate Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

What is it with creationists and hypocrisy? Hackenslash is not allowed to link papers, articles or whatever because Bernard mistakenly thinks it's an argument from authority and what does Bernard do.......and to top it of, he didn't even read the article he linked. Hackenslash won't do it so I will: What a goddamn hypocritical moron!

Collecemall wrote:He really can't be so obtuse can he? I vacillate between anger and pity when reading his posts. Is it really that difficult to read the articles you post for someone else to read? I think the new bet should be if Hack ends the debate now. I have no monies to bet but I suspect he won't waste much more time on nonsense.

You may be right.
Nom...I bewieeeeeve....nom nom nom...I have faith in Eviwution
You can find me in Montreal, in a bitching arcade! I'm proud of my gun, and I pood in space!
Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:13 pm
WWW
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

Greetings,

I had posted the Panda's Thumb article in the 80-pager thread - he dismissed it as evolutionists dismissing creationists'/IDers' claims... :?

He's just repeating himself now.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:53 pm
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

I had posted the Panda's Thumb article in the 80-pager thread - he dismissed it as evolutionists dismissing creationists'/IDers' claims... :?

He's just repeating himself now.

Kindest regards,

James


I'm not suprised.

Ah well. It's good for the lurkers
Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:58 pm
dargndorpPosts: 3Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

itsdemtitans wrote:
Ah well. It's good for the lurkers

And here I am, a bona fide lurker that this whole kerfuffle has brought out of the woodworks. I've been following the original thread ever since Bernie "challenged" Aron and kept coming back for more inanity from Bernie.

I'm not quite sure how the internet money betting works, but I'll go all in that Bernie will not be able or willing to contribute anything worthwhile to the debate.
Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:49 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

SpecialFrog wrote:And here is a transcript of the "Lucy tampering" video to which he must be referring.

OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.

DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.

OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position.

DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours. Anatomically at least, Lucy could stand like a human.

The original Lucy is untouched, allowing others to verify whether Lovejoy's separation and reassembly of the fossil pieces is valid.


:facepalm:



itsdemtitans wrote:Can anyone address his claims about Tiktaalik? Or should I email Neil Shubin his claims and get his take?


If you quote it, I will address it. Creationists are never original and I have been dealing with creationists' claims about Tiktaalik since shortly after it was discovered.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:02 am
YIM WWW
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

he_who_is_nobody wrote:If you quote it, I will address it. Creationists are never original and I have been dealing with creationists' claims about Tiktaalik since shortly after it was discovered.


You mean I have to read the stupid AGAIN??

Be right back with it
Thu Aug 06, 2015 1:43 am
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

Here ya go.

Bernhard.Canard wrote:
Why tiktaalik is not a transistional

A) like every other claimed transistional it's is of "poor quality" according to evolutionists.
B) rock containing tetrapods footprints dated millions of years before tiktaalik shows tetrapods had already existed before tiktaalik debunking it as the transistional between fish and tetrapods, unless of course you wish to claim without being there that tetrapod evolved more then once in which case your own guys admit your fossil is "poor" in other words because of "poor" fossil insert evolution of the gaps. Piecing together a few bones you can make it look like anything... It's called voodoo bones.
C)
although the quality of that specimen was poor. And the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other." (Some science article... Feel free to ask for the article I will be overjoyed to give it. Because if you do ask for article then you understand the importance of that particular sentence admitted by evolutionists themselves. Evolutionists admitting that " it does not seem to match" right it doesn't thank you. That's a good enough reason to debunk the whole transistional thing.
Last edited by itsdemtitans on Sat Oct 17, 2015 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Aug 06, 2015 1:44 am
keeper541Posts: 35Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:49 pm

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

I love his statement saying if you ask for his source you admit his claim is true. :roll:
No it means I don't trust lieing creationist to actually read the whole discussion.

I'm wondering if his"poor condition" is just that fossils are smashed, crushed, and sometimes spread out a little. I am not a paleontologist but I would imagine determining the bones that go together isn't that big if a deal.
Thu Aug 06, 2015 4:41 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 778Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

keeper541 wrote:I love his statement saying if you ask for his source you admit his claim is true. :roll:
No it means I don't trust lieing creationist to actually read the whole discussion.

I'm wondering if his"poor condition" is just that fossils are smashed, crushed, and sometimes spread out a little. I am not a paleontologist but I would imagine determining the bones that go together isn't that big if a deal.

Wait what? Doesn't that mean that if he asks for evidence for evolution he admits that evolution is true? In creationist logic, of course but still...
Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:51 am
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2572Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

dargndorp wrote:
itsdemtitans wrote:
Ah well. It's good for the lurkers

And here I am, a bona fide lurker that this whole kerfuffle has brought out of the woodworks. I've been following the original thread ever since Bernie "challenged" Aron and kept coming back for more inanity from Bernie.

I'm not quite sure how the internet money betting works, but I'll go all in that Bernie will not be able or willing to contribute anything worthwhile to the debate.



Welcome aboard!

Just repeating your post here so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle after awaiting approval.
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:34 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2959Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

Greetings,

Which means that dargndrop has won already.

Welcome to LoR, dargndrop! :D

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:03 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

itsdemtitans wrote:Here ya go.

Bernhard.unoriginal wrote:

Why tiktaalik is not a transistional

A) like every other claimed transistional it's is of "poor quality" according to evolutionists.
B) rock containing tetrapods footprints dated millions of years before tiktaalik shows tetrapods had already existed before tiktaalik debunking it as the transistional between fish and tetrapods, unless of course you wish to claim without being there that tetrapod evolved more then once in which case your own guys admit your fossil is "poor" in other words because of "poor" fossil insert evolution of the gaps. Piecing together a few bones you can make it look like anything... It's called voodoo bones.
C)
although the quality of that specimen was poor. And the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other." (Some science article... Feel free to ask for the article I will be overjoyed to give it. Because if you do ask for article then you understand the importance of that particular sentence admitted by evolutionists themselves. Evolutionists admitting that " it does not seem to match" right it doesn't thank you. That's a good enough reason to debunk the whole transistional thing.


A) Bernhard.visscher makes the same mistake all creationists make when talking about transitional fossils. He is assuming there was only one specimen of Tiktaalik discovered. There are several specimens of it, including one published just last year that showed what the pelvis looked like. Now, depending on what Bernhard.visscher means by "poor quality," it can be over come by having several specimens to look at.

B) This was already covered in the original thread ad nauseum. The transitional nature of Tiktaalik (or any transitional species) is not dependent on its position in the fossil record. There is nothing in nature that says anything has to go extinct when more derived animals come after it. Basically, he is still using his made up term ("direct ancestral transitional") in a formal debate.

C) Radials? Does he mean radius? But the radius does not articulate with the fingers. I do not know what he saying here (besides demonstrating that he knows absolutely nothing about anatomy). Either the source he is using is completely wrong (and he does not know it) or he read it wrong and because of his ignorance of anatomy, he is just making it up as he goes along. Either possibility seems likely after reading the original thread.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Aug 06, 2015 3:33 pm
YIM WWW
redPosts: 142Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:11 am

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

he_who_is_nobody wrote:C) Radials? Does he mean radius? But the radius does not articulate with the fingers. I do not know what he saying here (besides demonstrating that he knows absolutely nothing about anatomy).

Was it not circular reasoning - or maybe tyresome?
Fri Aug 07, 2015 4:06 am
keeper541Posts: 35Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:49 pm

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

Visaki wrote:
keeper541 wrote:I love his statement saying if you ask for his source you admit his claim is true. :roll:
No it means I don't trust lieing creationist to actually read the whole discussion.

I'm wondering if his"poor condition" is just that fossils are smashed, crushed, and sometimes spread out a little. I am not a paleontologist but I would imagine determining the bones that go together isn't that big if a deal.

Wait what? Doesn't that mean that if he asks for evidence for evolution he admits that evolution is true? In creationist logic, of course but still...


Well yea, probably why he doesn't want someone to actually give him the source of the evidence. He's argued very strongly against anyone using any sort of source and for his opponents (Aronra and hackenslash) to just give him the evidence, he doesn't want the sources because that's an appeal to authority in his mind. I mean that could also be that once someone links a source, especially a peer-reviewed source, any lies he attempts on the evidence can easily be called out.
Fri Aug 07, 2015 4:36 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3347Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

red wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:C) Radials? Does he mean radius? But the radius does not articulate with the fingers. I do not know what he saying here (besides demonstrating that he knows absolutely nothing about anatomy).

Was it not circular reasoning - or maybe tyresome?


Image
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Aug 07, 2015 6:03 am
YIM WWW
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 778Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Discussion thread for Bernhard.visscher vs. hackenslash

keeper541 wrote:Well yea, probably why he doesn't want someone to actually give him the source of the evidence. He's argued very strongly against anyone using any sort of source and for his opponents (Aronra and hackenslash) to just give him the evidence, he doesn't want the sources because that's an appeal to authority in his mind. I mean that could also be that once someone links a source, especially a peer-reviewed source, any lies he attempts on the evidence can easily be called out.

I must admit that I fail to grasp the idea behind his claiming that pretty much all appeals to authority are somehow wrong. It's not likely that if his car broke down that we wouldn't take it to an auto mechanic or if he was sick he wouldn't go to a doctor just because they are authorities in their fields but when it comes to science and evolution in special. The doublethink must require a somehow special mind that I just don't have.

Oh, and the Bible? Clearly an appeal to THE authority. :D
Fri Aug 07, 2015 11:06 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 8
 [ 150 posts ] 
Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests