Creationists and research

[SLP]

kind a hard to question your POV..the proper response would be for Ashley Robinson and/or david cavanaugh to give their rebuttal to your comments...
only when a dialogue between both parties are present can one truly determine if your contentions have merit...

Did you not read what was written? What exactly would one of those authors 'defending' their 'science' prove? What possible defense IS THERE for rejecting data analyses due do a priori committments?

often you will see especially at talkorigins that there is a listing of arguments directed against a specific author or work...absent any counterpoint by the author or someone with equal expertise, it comes across as the creationists "silence" becomes an affirmation for acceptance of defeat..yet when you read a book like when Creationists answer their critics or trueorigins, often you see a different picture of the arguments..so even though I respect your POV only a rebuttal by the authors or someone more familiar with this subject could change how one should view your claims.

Whatever....

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I have to make a correction on what I said earlier about science.
I was confusing inductivism (one scientific method) with induction, and so had a flawed understanding of the word "inductive". No thanks to Joe Meert, who informed me I was wrong but was loathe to give reasons, I have discovered this.
I still was partially correct - science does use deduction in the formation of hypotheses and other parts. However, on the whole, the scientific method is inductive in its purpose. It's just that induction means something different from what I thought it did.

2. observable (we observe the mechanism of evolution in action today in both teh wild and the lab resulting in new species further teh fossil record provides an observable record of the history of life on Earth)

The evolution observed in the lab is not the same as Darwinian evolution. It is a completely different process, and does nothing to explain common descent. The processes observed in the lab could not transform, for example, a reptile into a bird. Because of a tendancy to use the word "evolution" to mean a variety of things, one can easily be distracted by believing proof for one type of evolution necessarily means that all things called "evolution" are now proven.

I wish I could reply to everything else, but I'm very busy at the moment, so I can only reply in patches.

Well that at least puts you a few feet up the rationality spectrum from your friends at AiG and ICR who are all required to sign a statement of faith that no evidence can by definition contradict their beliefs in YEC.

The logic works two ways:
The Bible is true, therefore any evidence against it must be wrong.
If the evidence against the Bible record is shown to be without fault, then the Bible must not be true.

So, if some evidence appears to contradict the Bible, then it is not unreasonable at all that AiG and ICR members should do all that is possible to find out why it does not contradict the Bible.
This is no different from when mathemeticians demonstrated Darwinist evolution was impossible given the time frame, and the Darwinists responded "Well, life is here, so it did happen, so your calculations must be wrong!" This is the same kind of a priori belief in Darwinist evolution which they (you) throw against the Creationists.

 

[MartinM]

The processes observed in the lab could not transform, for example, a reptile into a bird

Why not?

 

[JGMEERT]

I have to make a correction on what I said earlier about science.
I was confusing inductivism (one scientific method) with induction, and so had a flawed understanding of the word "inductive". No thanks to Joe Meert, who informed me I was wrong but was loathe to give reasons, I have discovered this.

JM: Actually, had I not made you backtrack, examine and backtrack again, you would have continued with your silly assertion.

I still was partially correct

JM: You sound like my students wanting partial credit for being partially 'wrong'! You made an absolute statement several times. Now you want credit for being partially right. This is absurd, but not all that uncommon. You made a mistake, is it so hard to admit that you were wrong? Why must you qualify your absolute statement with the "i was partially correct' ****?

The evolution observed in the lab is not the same as Darwinian evolution.

JM: It certainly is. Are we going to go through three pages of discussion until you claim 'I was partially correct' on this one?

I wish I could reply to everything else, but I'm very busy at the moment, so I can only reply in patches.

JM: Yes, it'd be nice if those patches were well thought out.

The Bible is true, therefore any evidence against it must be wrong.
If the evidence against the Bible record is shown to be without fault, then the Bible must not be true.

JM: There is no logic here at all. These are both dogmatic assertions. The simplest, non-dogmatic conclusion is that the bible is not a science book.

This is no different from when mathemeticians demonstrated Darwinist evolution was impossible given the time frame, and the Darwinists responded "Well, life is here, so it did happen, so your calculations must be wrong!" This is the same kind of a priori belief in Darwinist evolution which they (you) throw against the Creationists.

JM: Darwin was right. However, I am not sure that mathematicians ever demonstrated that evolution was impossible in the short time frame. I actually think that Darwin acknowledged long time frames were necessary.

 

[JGMEERT]

I have to make a correction on what I said earlier about science.
I was confusing inductivism (one scientific method) with induction, and so had a flawed understanding of the word "inductive". No thanks to Joe Meert, who informed me I was wrong but was loathe to give reasons, I have discovered this.

JM: Actually, had I not made you backtrack, examine and backtrack again, you would have continued with your silly assertion.

I still was partially correct

JM: You sound like my students wanting partial credit for being partially 'wrong'. You made an absolute statement several times. Now you want credit for being partially right. We all see this.

The evolution observed in the lab is not the same as Darwinian evolution.

JM: It certainly is. Are we going to go through three pages of discussion until you claim 'I was partially correct' on this one?

I wish I could reply to everything else, but I'm very busy at the moment, so I can only reply in patches.

JM: Yes, it'd be nice if those patches were well thought out.

The Bible is true, therefore any evidence against it must be wrong.
If the evidence against the Bible record is shown to be without fault, then the Bible must not be true.

JM: There is no logic here at all. These are both dogmatic assertions. The simplest, non-dogmatic conclusion is that the bible is not a science book.

This is no different from when mathemeticians demonstrated Darwinist evolution was impossible given the time frame, and the Darwinists responded "Well, life is here, so it did happen, so your calculations must be wrong!" This is the same kind of a priori belief in Darwinist evolution which they (you) throw against the Creationists.

JM: Darwin was right. However, I am not sure that mathematicians ever demonstrated that evolution was impossible in the short time frame. I actually think that Darwin acknowledged long time frames were necessary.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

If anyone thinks Joe makes a good point about anything I say, I'll be happy to talk about that as I have time. Just let me know which parts.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Why not?

First of all, the steps leading up to transformation of reptile into bird are completely unobserved. They are hypothetical. No one has observed a lump on a population spread rapidly through a population, and observed successive mutations on that lump make it larger until it eventually enables some sort of limitted flight. It is a completely hypothetical statement with no observations.

Second, such a lump (whether it be a supposed leg on a whale or something else) is clearly a disadvantage. Such physical abnormalities would also make a creature less likely to reproduce, as others would shun a less appealing partner.

Third, this lump would make a creature less fit. Such mutations are a hindrance long before they are an advantage. An ad-hoc answer to this is that they perform an unrelated advantage until such a time as natural selection completes its creative work. Imagine wings though - what function would an incomplete wing incapable of flight provide that gives a selective advantage? While one step may provide an advantage, there is no guaruntee that the next step will. And, again, unfortunately for Darwinists this is unobserved.

There is absolutely no proof that a lump could transform into a wing at all, given a billion years or more.

Another problem with Darwinist evolution - over a period of 70 million years, we are supposed to believe that some species changed tremendous amounts (eg, ancestors of humans), yet other species such as the coelacanth, remain unchanged? This is not at all a prediction of Darwinist evolution, but such facts are transformed into predictions of Darwinism after the fact.
Darwin himself predicted a fossil record full of transitional forms, but when that failed to be true, it was quickly turned into an asset of Darwinist evolution. Again, what it predicts was changed after the fact.

Anyway, I could go on, but this post will probably generate more responses than I'll have time to handle.

 

[JGMEERT]

If anyone thinks Joe makes a good point about anything I say, I'll be happy to talk about that as I have time. Just let me know which parts.

JM: That's not EVEN a clever dodge. You're clearly embarrassed by your own silly argument.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[notto]

Another problem with Darwinist evolution - over a period of 70 million years, we are supposed to believe that some species changed tremendous amounts (eg, ancestors of humans), yet other species such as the coelacanth, remain unchanged? This is not at all a prediction of Darwinist evolution, but such facts are transformed into predictions of Darwinism after the fact.

Have you read Origin yourself? This statement would indicate that you have not.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

JM: That's not EVEN a clever dodge. You're clearly embarrassed by your own silly argument.

Cheers

Joe Meert

You just don't give up do you?

1. I admitted I was wrong
2. By "partially correct" I meant I was correct by accident, despite my misunderstanding, not because I knew I was right.
So I wasn't like one of your students. It was a full admission I was wrong.

Now I plan to stick by my original statement of avoiding replying to you, because I find you extremely irritating. You deliberately irk people. I find people like physics_guy and Joe Black to be far more civilized in their approach than you. So if someone like them thinks that you make a good point, then let them tell me and I'll respond. But I refuse to engage in debate with you because it is completely unprofitable for me.

Edit: I get the feeling there's no way to win with you. Admit I'm wrong, and suddenly I'm no longer a man. Insist I'm right when I make a mistake, and I'm an ignorant fool.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Have you read Origin yourself? This statement would indicate that you have not.

If Darwin does predict in his Origins that it is expected that some species should remain unchanged for millions of years (and preferably why he expects that), then I will acknowledge my mistake.

 

[notto]

If Darwin does predict in his Origins that it is expected that some species should remain unchanged for millions of years (and preferably why he expects that), then I will acknowledge my mistake.

He does. The term 'living fossils' can most likely be attributed to Darwin himself.

By the way, the 'species' of the organisms you mentioned such as the coelecanth have changed quite a bit. The living species is not the same as the species we find in the fossil record. They are simply species of the same family.

 

[Philosoft]

Another problem with Darwinist evolution - over a period of 70 million years, we are supposed to believe that some species changed tremendous amounts (eg, ancestors of humans), yet other species such as the coelacanth, remain unchanged? This is not at all a prediction of Darwinist evolution, but such facts are transformed into predictions of Darwinism after the fact.

Rubbish. Natural selection does not operate within an vacuum. There's also the thing called "environment" that dictates to a significant degree the relative success of new mutations.

Darwin himself predicted a fossil record full of transitional forms, but when that failed to be true, it was quickly turned into an asset of Darwinist evolution. Again, what it predicts was changed after the fact.

Darwin wasn't right, but he wasn't completely wrong either. Some lineages have a full complement of transitionals, others are less complete. So what? Acknowledge the flaws of early Darwinism, construct a theory to account for observations and get on with it. Common descent is hardly in any danger.

 

[Data]

[edit]

 

[JGMEERT]

You just don't give up do you?

JM: Why should I? You've backed yourself up into the corner.

1. I admitted I was wrong

JM: Not until you argued yourself into a corner.

2. By "partially correct" I meant I was correct by accident, despite my misunderstanding, not because I knew I was right.

JM: No, saying 'partially correct' is an attempt to salvage a bad argument.

So I wasn't like one of your students. It was a full admission I was wrong.

JM: LOL. You don't even realize how poorly you argue your points!

Now I plan to stick by my original statement of avoiding replying to you,

JM: Why should anyone expect you to change after 20+ pages of non-response?

because I find you extremely irritating.

JM: I suppose once you realized how wrong you were it was very irritating.

You deliberately irk people.

JM: I deliberately point out bad arguments. If that 'irks' you, then I've done my job.

But I refuse to engage in debate with you because it is completely unprofitable for me.

JM: Of course it is! That's the whole point!

I get the feeling there's no way to win with you.

JM: Be a man and quit trying to hide your mistakes with excuses like "I was partially correct". You made an absolute statement. You were wrong. That's that. Get over it and move on. It's not a big deal to be wrong. You make it a big deal by constantly trying to qualify your answer.

Admit I'm wrong, and suddenly I'm no longer a man. Insist I'm right when I make a mistake, and I'm an ignorant fool.

JM:Admit you're wrong and stop trying to make excuses for it and you are a man. The second part, you've got correct.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Cantuar]

He does. The term 'living fossils' can most likely be attributed to Darwin himself.

It's somewhere in "Origin of Species," although I can't find it this evening on a quick glance through the book.

 

[Aggie]

First of all, the steps leading up to transformation of reptile into bird are completely unobserved. They are hypothetical. No one has observed a lump on a population spread rapidly through a population, and observed successive mutations on that lump make it larger until it eventually enables some sort of limitted flight. It is a completely hypothetical statement with no observations.

Second, such a lump (whether it be a supposed leg on a whale or something else) is clearly a disadvantage. Such physical abnormalities would also make a creature less likely to reproduce, as others would shun a less appealing partner.

Third, this lump would make a creature less fit. Such mutations are a hindrance long before they are an advantage. An ad-hoc answer to this is that they perform an unrelated advantage until such a time as natural selection completes its creative work. Imagine wings though - what function would an incomplete wing incapable of flight provide that gives a selective advantage? While one step may provide an advantage, there is no guaruntee that the next step will. And, again, unfortunately for Darwinists this is unobserved.

Ah, my specialty. I know GFA is our champion about this topic, but I hope he doesn't mind the runner-up filling in for him when the champion's not available.

First of all, what do you mean by unobserved? If you mean we haven't literally travelled back in time to watch this happening, you're right, but until time travel gets invented we've still got the next best thing: fossils. The fossils from china's Yixian formation are probably a better example of the sort of thing whose existence you're denying in your second and third paragraph, but Archaeopteryx should be a good example of how one can see a snapshot of the evolution of birds. Its wings were developed enough for it to fly, but not enough for it to take off from the ground. It had a true combination of reptilian and avian characteristics. See http://www.christianforums.com/t86023&page=22 , as well as a few other pages in that thread.

I've also explained some of the other ways it's signifigant in this respect at http://www.christianforums.com/t80067 . (With some help from GFA, of course.)

The second problem simply does not exist. In the 1980s, Robert Bakker and Gregory Paul hypothesized that some non-bird dinosaurs would have evolved feathers for purposes other than flight, and provided several theories about what function they could have served before they were modified for flight. Starting in 1996, the fossils from China that I mentioned showed the exact sorts of nascent feathers that Bakker and Paul had predicted would exist on dinosaurs other than birds. It is also easy to see what sorts of benefits they could have brought to the animals that had them, since most of the steps that flight evolved through are represented by at least a few of these animals.

I'm not sure if this qualifies as seeing "evolution in action" or not, since most of the Yixian animals were "living fossils" even in their OWN time, retaining their primitive stage in the evolution of flight even after their relatives had evolved a more advanced version of flight. Archaeopteryx is definitely an example of how we can observe evolution as it is happening, and the Yixian dinosaurs are examples of the advantage that can be served by each of the evolutionary steps on the way to flight.

There was never any certainty that each subsequent step would provide an advantage to the animals that had it. In some of these animals, it DIDN'T provide an advantage. When that happened, the group of animals stopped changing, and remained the same even as their relatives progressed further in the evolution of flight. Sometimes the evolution of flight does not progress past that stage in ANY of the animals that are part of the way to evolving it: flying squirrels have not progressed past the gliding stage that preceded powered flight in birds, and they may end up like Icarosaurus and never progress beyond that stage. The fact that the ancestors of birds, bats and pterosaurs--the only three groups of flying vertebrates can fly without needing aircraft for it--found an advantage for each step on the way to flight, isn't nearly as surprising when one realizes that the evolution of flight also often hits a dead end.

But no one remembers the dead ends, now do they?

I've already described the intermdiate stages through which flight evolved several times, and you can find my description of these stages, and the animals that are examples of each of them, in the two threads I linked to. I'd rather not bore everyone here who remembers this from last time I explained it, so if I'm going to explain it again it should probably be in a way that can be intersting even to people who already know it.

Here goes:

When dawn's first rays attacked the sky, the twilight's dusky cold
Still held the slowly rousing beasts within its frozen hold.
But one small creature was alert to watch the day begin.
He needed not await the sun; his warmth came from within.
He outperformed his fellow beasts at every morning's start,
And brought about a progeny that shared his heated heart.

The warmth of life was nursed in them, but still the ice and snow
Abducted from within their frames the closely cherished glow.
A barrier the creatures lacked, to keep the cold at bay,
Except for one anomaly on whom it could not prey.
He outperformed his fellow beasts the frigid air had smote,
And brought about a progeny that shared his furry coat.

There came each year a special time when romance filled the air;
It roused the senses of each beast, and laid his passions bare.
Each female sought a gaudy mate whose favor to pursue,
And found a male whose feathered arms were fringed with brilliant hue.
He outperformed his fellow beasts in love's impressive way,
And brought about a progeny that shared his bright display.

Though predators the creatures were, they oft were also prey,
For they were not the only hunter living in their day.
But peril brought one fleeing beast a great discovery:
That beating fast his feathered arms could help him climb a tree!
He outperformed his fellow beasts, too high for claws to kill,
And brought about a progeny that shared his climbing skill.

The timid creatures rarely left the forest canopy;
With feathered wings they rode the wind and glided tree to tree.
The winged beat the beasts had used to reach their leafy lair
Served one of them to steer his glide and keep him in the air.
He outperformed his fellow beasts with his descent's delay,
And brought about a progeny enduring to this day.

It was a mighty purpose for the creatures to obtain:
To leave the rocky earth below and join the sky's domain.
Yet every step along the way, to its unknowing host
Was nothing but a slight advantage not enjoyed by most,
To outperform his fellow beasts with some new useful trait,
And bring about a progeny that surely shared his fate.

I wrote that in 2003. The world needs more paleontology poems.

 

[Jet Black]

If Darwin does predict in his Origins that it is expected that some species should remain unchanged for millions of years (and preferably why he expects that), then I will acknowledge my mistake.

On a small island, the race for life will have been less severe, and there will have been less modification and less extermination. Hence, we can understand how it is that the flora of Madeira, according to Oswald Heer, resembles to a certain extent the extinct tertiary flora of Europe. All fresh water basins, taken together, make a small area compared with that of the sea or of the land. Consequently, the competition between fresh water productions will have been less severe than elsewhere; new forms will have been more slowly produced, and old forms more slowly exterminated. And it is in fresh water basins that we find seven genera of Ganoid fishes, remnants of a once preponderant order: and in fresh water we find some of the most anomalous forms now known in the world, as the Ornithorhynchus and Lepidosiren, which, like fossils, connect to a certain extent orders at present widely separated in the natural scale. These anomalous forms may be called living fossils; they have endured to the present day, from having inhabited a confined area, and from having been exposed to less varied, and therefore less severe, competition.
-The Origin of Species, Chapter 4 (emphasis mine)

as you can see, he coined the phrase, he had examples, and even an explanation.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

as you can see, he coined the phrase, he had examples, and even an explanation.

Very well. So one should expect in all such isolated regions little or no evolutionary change?

 

[Cantuar]

Glad I didn't spend any longer looking, since you found it!