Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thus it should be painfully obvious that academia needs to change its definition of fowl -- isn't it?

Not in the slightest.

 

[Bradskii]

...there is the hope that something does get through to him...

No, there is no hope. Absolutely none whatsoever.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, there is no hope. Absolutely none whatsoever.

Even if it's a smidgen, I have hope that he'll learn.

 

[Hans Blaster]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1342937X16303112
"The fossil is supposed as an aquatic precursor of dry land lycophytes." Supposed is a word used when someone isn't really sure.

This sentence is from the "Highlights" which seems to be some sort of public bullet point summary. I have no idea if it was written by the authors or some editor. I've not worked with a journal that uses them yet. The other point I would make on this bit of nitpicking is that "supposed" is an odd choice. Better choices would seem to be "proposed" or "apparent" or something like that. This again seems to be related to your unfamiliarity of how we communicate and report our work and the types of conclusion science makes.

 

[sjastro]

Also, I know it's pointless to present anything to AV, but it still needs to be done just so there is the hope that something does get through to him, and if it doesn't then it at least shows the lurkers that he is challenged on his views and that his views are decidedly wrong.

If there are any lurkers who take AV seriously they are also beyond help.

There is the Australian dinosaur Qantassaurus named after Australia's national airline Qantas.
Does this mean Qantas had flights dating back to the early Cretaceous 115 million years ago, or may be the Qantassaurus is running around Australia only seen by Qantas staff?
It makes as much (non)sense as AV's take on Tiktaalik.

 

[The Barbarian]

"Kind"is a religious term.

From the Bible, birds and bats are listed as the same kind. "Kind" is a religious term, a functional classification, not a taxonomic level. Your revision of the term makes sense only if you think that birds and bats comprise one genus. Again, the internal contradictions in your beliefs undercut your argument.

Let's be frank here, the Bible does not call a bat a "bird."

It calls it a "fowl."

No, if you're going to nitpick the Bible says "oph." Hebrew word for "bird."

"Fowl" is a synonym for "bird."

Definition of FOWL

a bird of any kind; a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or hen of the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus); especially : an adult hen; any of several domesticated or wild gallinaceous birds… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

So your excuse won't work.

Academia teaches, however, that all fowl are birds.

You think Merriam-Webster is "academia?" I think we've located another problem in your beliefs.

Does academia recognize the eagle as a fowl?

Merriam-Webster does. If you refuse to use words as they are used by others, you'll continue to have problems.

Thus Bible haters claim that Leviticus is in error.

As I showed you, it's not an error. You should stop thinking of it that way. As you should have learned, the word is a functional classification in the Bible. "Animals that fly." It's not a taxonomic term. And your failure to understand this is why you keep thinking of it as an error.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Kind"is a religious term.

Is "earth" a religious term as well?

From the Bible, birds and bats are listed as the same kind.

No they are not.

Here's the passage again:

Leviticus 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15 Every raven after his kind;
16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

Notice that, after calling them ALL "fowl," it goes on to list SPECIFIC ONES "after his/her kind."

That means fowls are subdivided up into "kinds" -- or their respective genuses.

So, no.

Birds and bats are not in the same genus.

"Kind" is a religious term, a functional classification, not a taxonomic level.

Is "earth" a religious term as well?

Your revision of the term makes sense only if you think that birds and bats comprise one genus.

YOU are the one conflating "fowl" with "genus."

Again, the internal contradictions in your beliefs undercut your argument.

Not hardly.

No, if you're going to nitpick the Bible says "oph." Hebrew word for "bird."

What Bible specifically?

I suspect you're now conflating "concordance" with "Bible".

I'll give you an A for effort, but ... well ... I'll leave it at that.

You need to quit, before you make yourself sound too academic.

 

[The Barbarian]

The Bible says that bats and birds are fowl (oph) and that they are a kind:

Genesis 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

What Bible specifically?

I suspect you're now conflating "concordance" with "Bible".

The Bible was first written in Hebrew. Thought you knew. "Oph" is the word used for "fowl" in scripture. Or is that another of the verses YECs reject because it doesn't fit their revisions?

I'll give you an A for effort, but ... well ... I'll leave it at that.

You need to quit, before you make yourself sound too revisionist.

 

[River Jordan]

Hvizsgyak: "All we want is scientist to be humble in presenting their theories"

"The fossil is supposed as an aquatic precursor of dry land lycophytes." Supposed is a word used when someone isn't really sure.

"Due to the compression and high degree of coalification, no anatomical data are available to prove unambiguously the affinity to vascular plants but medial strands in microphylls indicate thicker tissue of a single midrib unknown in algae." That word unambiguously shows there is doubt in the analysis.

Utterly ridiculous.

It really does look like all your posts basically boil down to you being frustrated at how scientists keep reaching conclusions you don't like. Your grousing about how they describe those conclusions is irrelevant, since you complain no matter what words they use. As long as they maintain that all life shares a common ancestry and humans are related to other primates, you'll complain.

So all of this is really about how you cannot ever accept universal common ancestry, likely for religious reasons. Correct?

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I'm sure you'll all have alot to complain about from what Sabine has said but I just want the audience to know about our "trustworthy" scientists too (for the record). Not all they write is 100% accurate.

 

[FaithT]

I'm sure you'll all have alot to complain about from what Sabine has said but I just want the audience to know about our "trustworthy" scientists too (for the record). Not all they write is 100% accurate.

I’d still rely on their collective word on these things over not relying on them.

 

[BCP1928]

In the end it doesn't really matter how uncertain the conclusions of evolutionary biologists are. Biblical creationism has been off the table as a scientific proposition for two hundred years. That particular "black swan" showed up a long time ago.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm sure you'll all have alot to complain about from what Sabine has said but I just want the audience to know about our "trustworthy" scientists too (for the record). Not all they write is 100% accurate.

Yes, humans are fallible and prone to all sorts of errors. Yes, nothing in science is 100% accurate.

But that does not mean that we should discard anything science says just because we don't like it. To do so is just a gross example of arrogance and ignorance from whoever says we should.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm sure you'll all have alot to complain about from what Sabine has said but I just want the audience to know about our "trustworthy" scientists too (for the record). Not all they write is 100% accurate.

The key point is that science is generating knowledge about the universe around us at an unprecedented rate. Which is the purpose. Do you sell a car, if it hardly ever needs repairs?

 

[sjastro]

I'm sure you'll all have alot to complain about from what Sabine has said but I just want the audience to know about our "trustworthy" scientists too (for the record). Not all they write is 100% accurate.

I have no issues with the Sabine’s video as it is an illustration of human behaviour rather than any science. She claims of being unfairly treated in her field of physics, has an axe to grind and uses YouTube videos to vent her spleen.

Your posts also illustrate human behaviour in action, you see evolution as threat to your faith resulting in an us vs them argument (scientist vs the common man).
Instead of showing why evolution is wrong and creationism is right, the “why should we trust scientists?” argument is nothing more than a strawman because it’s a lot easier question their credibility instead of making the case for creationism.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Your list has same major falsehoods. I'm guessing you weren't aware of them. AI can be useful, but if it comes to something you don't understand very well, be very cautious.

One of the most common YEC superstitions is that evolution is about the origin of life. Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things. If God had magically poofed living things into existence rather than as He says in Genesis, evolution would still work exactly the way we see it working now.

We're always learning new things about the way evolution works. None of that is a surprise to biologists.



AI failed you. Even honest YECs like Dr. Kurt Wise admit that the transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds and therapsids and mammals are very good evidence for evolution.
View attachment 368506
View attachment 368507
This is why you should always be very careful about letting AI think for you. It's not really intelligent; it just nicely simulates some kinds of mental processes.

Like all you guys say to me - prove it. I know there are some flaws with AI but from what other scientists who question the theory of evolution say is wrong with the theory, the AI seems to have hit most of them. So, I'm going to take the AI's word for it on these flaws (that they are still flaws).

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Good grief, man. Post a link to a video if you want anyone to see it. No one in their right mind is going to click a random search link from someone else with embedded trackers.

Sorry, I took the first video that look decent. I'll check for another.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Perhaps you don't know what "macroevolution" is. We have directly observed instances of macroevolution.

Macroevolution​

Definition
noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.
Supplement
Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.

Macroevolution Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary

Macroevolution in the largest biology dictionary online. Free learning resources for students covering all major areas of biology.

www.biologyonline.com

Could you rattle off a few of them and who observed them?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Could you rattle off a few of them and who observed them?

Did anyone see your 20x ancestors mating and giving birth to your 19x ancestor? If that sounds insipid it's because you're asking the same sort of question.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I’d still rely on their collective word on these things over not relying on them.

Nah , too many atheists are doing the sciences.

Scientists and Belief

When President Barack Obama announced on July 8, 2009, that he would nominate renowned geneticist Francis Collins to be the new director of the National

www.pewresearch.org

And I be willing to bet the more vocal ones are handling the evolution stuff.