Ostrich wings, Intelligent design. Goofed up?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Darwin explicitly recognized the apparent sudden appearances in the record like the Cambrian, to be highly problematic, even fatal to his theory. And so also explicitly predicted that these sudden events would turn out to be mere artifacts of an incomplete record, that would be filled in and smoothed out as more fossils were found.

But the record became increasingly more sharply delineated into explosive radiation events as new fossils were discovered.

This incongruity is widely accepted to the point that Darwinism splintered into the gradualist and punctuated equilibrium camps. This is really not all that controversial- it's not a death blow to Darwinism in itself, but it's certainly widely recognized (including by Raup) that the record did not smooth out as Darwinists had hoped.

And again, you're arguing a strawman. The Cambrian explosion was in no way 'fatal' to his theory (and a period of 10 million years is a long explosion), and it has not shown to be.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'd probably get banned for the language that I would originally use in response to that comment, because you cannot be that dumb to think you have a point with that.

I think that's actually a direct quote from Einstein addressing Lemaitre's Primeval Atom theory.

Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat Warden.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think that's actually a direct quote from Einstein addressing Lemaitre's Primeval Atom theory.

Insults are the most graceless form of conceding defeat Warden.

Except that I'm not conceding defeat, since I was pointing out that you created a strawman in post #55 and your response to me pointing out So's Law was infantile and asinine.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And again, you're arguing a strawman. The Cambrian explosion was in no way 'fatal' to his theory

It was Darwin's opinion that the gaps were potentially fatal, he was very open about the weaknesses of his own theory which is admirable.

(and a period of 10 million years is a long explosion), and it has not shown to be.

It's interesting, when I was a devout believer in Darwinism (for most of my life) I remember arguing that 200 million years is a long explosion.

I was surprised to learn recently that it's been whittled down to 5-12 million.

Case in point, the record is getting more explosive, not less. 'Fatal' or not, it certainly does not strengthen the argument.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It was Darwin's opinion that the gaps were potentially fatal, he was very open about the weaknesses of his own theory which is admirable.

Which he explained openly by pointing out that there would be gaps in the fossil records, which he described as an 'extreme imperfection'.

It's interesting, when I was a devout believer in Darwinism (for most of my life) I remember arguing that 200 million years is a long explosion.

I was surprised to learn recently that it's been whittled down to 5-12 million.

Case in point, the record is getting more explosive, not less. 'Fatal' or not, it certainly does not strengthen the argument.

To say that you were a 'devout believer in Darwinism' really calls into question any of you commentary about evolution. No-one believes in a scientific theory. They accept a scientific theory as factual. Belief and acceptance are not the same thing.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Except that I'm not conceding defeat, since I was pointing out that you created a strawman in post #55 and your response to me pointing out So's Law was infantile and asinine.

You forgot bad grammar, I said 'You're' instead of Your- I hate when people do that!

Anyway I appreciate the (mostly) civil debate, must get back to doing something more productive and less fun. I will respond if you have any other counter-arguments.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You forgot bad grammar, I said 'You're' instead of Your- I hate when people do that!

Anyway I appreciate the (mostly) civil debate, must get back to doing something more productive and less fun. I will respond if you have any other counter-arguments.

Oh, and I copied as well. We both did a your instead of a you're.

ETA: Ugh. Do not like that emoji.

 

[Astrid]

Which he explained openly by pointing out that there would be gaps in the fossil records, which he described as an 'extreme imperfection'.



To say that you were a 'devout believer in Darwinism' really calls into question any of you commentary about evolution. No-one believes in a scientific theory. They accept a scientific theory as factual. Belief and acceptance are not the same thing.

The so- common statements from
deniers that " belief in evolution requires
more faith than..", or "devout belief "
just show the writer has never had a clue
about science.

I dont "believe" ToE any more than i
"believe" how cars work.

Its about understanding, not faith.

There are a few who know better but find theres some
money and attention to be had it duping the gullible
with pseudoscience and lies.


Theres a few like Dr. K Wise , PhD paleo, who
are yecs.

Both of those groups are profoundly dishonest,
the first being crooked, the latter being intellectually
dishonest.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The so- common statements from
deniers that " belief in evolution requires
more faith than..", or "devout belief "
just show the writer has never had a clue
about science.

I dont "believe" ToE any more than i
"believe" how cars work.

Its about understanding, not faith.

There are a few who know better but find theres some
money and attention to be had it duping the gullible
with pseudoscience and lies.


Theres a few like Dr. K Wise , PhD paleo, who
are yecs.

Both of those groups are profoundly dishonest,
the first being crooked, the latter being intellectually
dishonest.

Then there's your trouble, how can a person question their own beliefs, if they do not even acknowledge them as such?

"pseudoscience"

(Wiki on Fred Hoyle's rejection of the big Bang)

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms"

i.e. labeling a claim as irrational, religious pseudoscience, unscientific, says more about one's own ideological biases, than whether that claim is true or not true.

 

[Ophiolite]

Then there's your trouble, how can a person question their own beliefs, if they do not even acknowledge them as such?

Well, I find no need to question my beliefs because I have none. I generally consider the holding of beliefs to be an irresponsible self-indulgence.

Now I hold with colloquial beliefs in the sense of using the expression "believe" in conversation. For example:

"I believe I'll have the French onion soup followed by the grilled salmon".
But I don't believe that at all. It's just a polite way of placing an order with your waiter. Last time I ordered the soup they came back and told me it was off the menu that day. And if the restaurant does not catch fire, or destroyed by a crashing plane, or swept away in the torrent from a collapsing damn, etc. then I may get the grilled salmon. But I accept, from the outset, that there are complex, intertwined events at play, each with their own probability of occuring, almost all of which I am unaware of, and for which I largely lack the data to calculate the odds. But that's fine.

As Warden of the Storm noted we accept scientifc theories - provisionally. Always provisionally. For example, I accept the Big Bang theory in its general form as being the most likely explanation for the universe as we see it. Personally I hate the theory. It lacks elegance. I would delight in seeing it overturned, but that's not where the evidence points. And evidence is what counts, not petty aesthetic objections.
If I had a belief in a theory, then were is disproven I would emotionally shocked. It works for me. You could try it.

 

[The Barbarian]

So for the Creationists, whats the deal with Ostrich wings? They cant fly, but fit well within Evolutionary Theory. Intelligent design? Maybe God accidentaly added a too many numbers on his calculater when he was trying to calculate the correct weight and wing ratio for optimum flight performance.

Technically, wings were first used on dinosaurs for balance and capturing prey on the run. Only later did some smaller dinosaurs use them to fly, some birds also used them as early dinosaurs did. So it makes perfect sense in light of evolution, although it's still a unsolvable problem for creationists.

 

[AV1611VET]

So it makes perfect sense in light of evolution, although it's still a unsolvable problem for creationists.

So I take it these creationists don't believe dinosaurs were aboard the Ark, along with ravens and doves?

And man?

Ostriches have large wings, but they do not use them to fly. Instead, they stick out their wings while running, which creates a rudder-like effect and helps the ostrich change direction at high speed. Ostriches also flap and fan their wings to help keep themselves cool in hot weather.

SOURCE

 

[The Barbarian]

So I take it these creationists don't believe dinosaurs were aboard the Ark, along with ravens and doves?

Ravens and Doves are dinosaurs. Can you name me an apomorphic character in birds that is not present in at least some other dinosaurs?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ravens and Doves are dinosaurs.

Only on paper.

I'm familiar with the teaching of avian and non-avian dinosaurs.

The point I was making is that, according to evolution doctrine, birds and T. Rexes didn't co-exist.

Yet they were on the Ark together.

Ditto for T Rexes and man.

Yet they were on the Ark together.

Can you name me an apomorphic character in birds that is not present in at least some other dinosaurs?

No, sir, I sure can't.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ravens and Doves are dinosaurs.

Only on paper.

Nope. In genes, in anatomy, in the fossil record. No point in denying the facts.

The point I was making is that, according to evolution doctrine, birds and T. Rexes didn't co-exist.

Evolutionary theory says no such thing. Birds existed by the late Jurassic. Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the last dinosaurs, living to the KT event in the Cretaceous.

Yet they were on the Ark together.

Ditto for T Rexes and man.

Yet they were on the Ark together.

Without any evidence... well, you know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Without any evidence... well, you know.

Yes, I do know.

Unfortunately, you don't.

And you already let us know what you think about it, when you said:

"Although it's still a unsolvable problem for creationists."

So you'll argue tooth and nail to keep it problematic for us creationists, won't you?

 

[Ophiolite]

So you'll argue tooth and nail to keep it problematic for us creationists, won't you?

The vast majority of practicing scientists ignore creationists. They do this because the creationists have nothing of interest to say and most things they do say are flawed, unsupported and for the most part wholly contradicted by evidence. Practically all problems experienced by creationists are caused by their own failure to think logically and follow the evidence.

The arguments you experience from evolutionists on this forum are from those with a scientific background (and a couple of bona fide scientists) who wish to give the undecided an opportunity of hearing the facts. I am well aware that there is very little chance of convincing someone who has already yielded to self delusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

The vast majority of practicing scientists ignore creationists. They do this because the creationists have nothing of interest to say and most things they do say are flawed, unsupported and for the most part wholly contradicted by evidence.

LOL

Read that slowly.

How do they know we have nothing of interest to say, if they're ignoring us?

How do they know most things we say are flawed, if they're ignoring us?

How do they know what we say is unsupported and contradicting, if they're ignoring us?

Then, when a practicing scientist does decide to break silence and contend with a creationist, said practicing scientist makes himself look bad.

Case in point:

Why am I defending ostriches having wings but can't fly to schooled intellects?

Because schooled intellects want to blame God on making mistakes, when in reality, those "wings" serve a different purpose altogether.

Not to mention having to explain -- (of all things) -- why people don't have tails.

Or the Exodus, or the Ark, or why pharaoh's name isn't mentioned in the Bible, etc and so on.

If they're going to ignore us -- ignore us.

But then don't break silence to make yourself look ... ignorant.

 

[AV1611VET]

The arguments you experience from evolutionists on this forum are from those with a scientific background (and a couple of bona fide scientists) who wish to give the undecided an opportunity of hearing the facts. I am well aware that there is very little chance of convincing someone who has already yielded to self delusion.

Do me a favor, would you?

Explain to me how the Ark could NOT have housed all those animals, when you [probably] know yourself that there are some ten to fifteen dimensions taught in science classes?

 

[Astrid]

The vast majority of practicing scientists ignore creationists. They do this because the creationists have nothing of interest to say and most things they do say are flawed, unsupported and for the most part wholly contradicted by evidence. Practically all problems experienced by creationists are caused by their own failure to think logically and follow the evidence.

The arguments you experience from evolutionists on this forum are from those with a scientific background (and a couple of bona fide scientists) who wish to give the undecided an opportunity of hearing the facts. I am well aware that there is very little chance of convincing someone who has already yielded to self delusion.

Aside from the shallow, dishonest nature of
such claims you noted, there's that it's all personal opinions.

No two creationists on this forum agree on their
claims.