Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

Are mammals reptiles?

I will take that as you saying that mammals and reptiles are different kinds.

So how do you explain the fact that we find species with a mixture of mammal and reptile features? If we find mammal-like reptiles, why shouldn't we also find mammal-like birds fossil species if common design is true? Why do we find one but not the other?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The only thing scientists have established before they do anything is this, there are no such things as magic, demons, gods, ghosts or angels,
beyond that I should image their minds are open to anything.
The only thing scientists love as much as discovering something is proving another scientist wrong.

A Big Bang with no known cause sounds like magic to me, as does the idea that everything in the universe was supposedly compressed into a tiny "thing" called a singularly or whatever the current popular notion is. Then we have (or do we?) so-called Dark Matter/Dark Energy, which no-one has ever detected but must exist because the Big Bang idea would be in even bigger trouble than it already is if it didn't. Then of course, we also have the supposed "magic" of lifeless chemicals organising themselves (apparently against the natural tendencies of the chemicals to do what they would naturally do) into self-reproducing life forms which then somehow managed to add massive amounts of new information by a process known to be almost 100% destructive until it became the complex world we see around us today, while all the time, leaving no undisputed trace of this in the fossil record. What is so amazing is that scientists involved in the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) project would have proclaimed with a loud fanfare if they had picked up any signal with a hint of intelligence behind it and yet other scientists will look through a microscope and when they see all the astonishing complexity of life, they will try to claim that no intelligence was required to produce it. No, I'm sorry but that takes a lot more faith to believe than the alternative, that God, who is eternal, created everything by means of His awesome power and intelligence.

 

[Loudmouth]

It serves more purpose rather than just having the sole purpose the larynx.

Why couldn't that purpose be filled by a nerve that exits the spinal column, enervates the larynx, and then terminates in the aorta?

What evidence does common ancestry explain better than common design?

The nested hierarchy. For example, why we find fossils with a mixture of reptile and mammal features but not bird and mammal features. Common design can't explain that.

They fall into a nested hierarchy because they were created in the way they were.

Why would you expect to see a nested hierarchy come out of a common design process?

There are life forms that have similar elements that are not ancestral...your hierarchy fails.

Please show me the homologous features that falsify the nested hierarchy.

Single floor buildings --two floor buildings---three floor buildings.

Those are not nested clades.

Life is classified by what we have labeled them. WE have certain attributes that we ascribe to a group of living forms such as mammals. Are reptiles the same group that we call mammals?

With the mammal-like reptile transitional fossils, the two groups are blended. Why don't we see the same thing with birds and mammals?

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/...tures/non-dino-reptiles/mammal-like-reptiles/

My point is that the classification systems we use are in regard to life forms already created. Life's history is what we base this on and this is the way God created. Please provide the evidence that mammals evolved from reptiles.

We have the transitional fossils.

That is your opinion.

Then show me a post on CF that was written by God.

 

[Loudmouth]

A Big Bang with no known cause sounds like magic to me,

Only the ignorant fill in the gaps in our knowledge with magic. "I don't know" is not magic. It never has been.

as does the idea that everything in the universe was supposedly compressed into a tiny "thing" called a singularly or whatever the current popular notion is.

It is science, not magic.

Then we have (or do we?) so-called Dark Matter/Dark Energy, which no-one has ever detected but must exist because the Big Bang idea would be in even bigger trouble than it already is if it didn't.

Dark matter detected here:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/dark_matter_proven.html

Detection of dark energy here:

http://supernova.lbl.gov/PDFs/PhysicsTodayArticle.pdf

Dark energy is no different than the detection of gravity. We "observe" gravity by the effect it has on bodies of mass. For dark energy, we observe it by observing how it accelerates the expansion of the universe.

Then of course, we also have the supposed "magic" of lifeless chemicals organising themselves (apparently against the natural tendencies of the chemicals to do what they would naturally do) into self-reproducing life forms which then somehow managed to add massive amounts of new information by a process known to be almost 100% destructive until it became the complex world we see around us today, while all the time, leaving no undisputed trace of this in the fossil record.

What do you think abiogenesis would look like in the fossil record?

What is so amazing is that scientists involved in the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) project would have proclaimed with a loud fanfare if they had picked up any signal with a hint of intelligence behind it and yet other scientists will look through a microscope and when they see all the astonishing complexity of life, they will try to claim that no intelligence was required to produce it. No, I'm sorry but that takes a lot more faith to believe than the alternative, that God, who is eternal, created everything by means of His awesome power and intelligence.

Where is your evidence that life was designed by an intelligence. If there is no evidence for it, why should we believe it?

 

[lifepsyop]

With the mammal-like reptile transitional fossils, the two groups are blended. Why don't we see the same thing with birds and mammals?

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/...tures/non-dino-reptiles/mammal-like-reptiles/

Reptiles and mammals are not "blended" anywhere but the imagination. Evolutionists focus in on isolated body parts (even that is most likely fudged somewhat) of otherwise very distinct looking organisms.

Here's what they show you (the illusion of gradualism is exaggerated by making everything one scale) Also, with more recent discoveries, evolutionists are having to say some of this mammalian "jawbone-ear transition" happened by convergent evolution now.

Here are several of the fossils and depictions of the animals that makes up the above "transition"...

Dimetrodon -

Advanced Cynodont: Chiniquodon - dog sized

Advanced Cynodont: Cynognathus - 3 feet long

Morganucodon - 4 inches long

See why they are always wanting you to focus on just their artistically rendered jawbone diagram?

Someday when science is not dominated by the dogma of evolutionary creation religion, people are going to look back and laugh at how desperately tenuous all of these models were and how they were lauded as irrefutable proofs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Reptiles and mammals are not "blended" anywhere but the imagination.

Mammal-like reptiles.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/...tures/non-dino-reptiles/mammal-like-reptiles/

Again, you are ignoring the facts.

 

[lifepsyop]

Only the ignorant fill in the gaps in our knowledge with magic. "I don't know" is not magic. It never has been.

You're right. "I don't know, but nature did it somehow and someday we'll find out how", is about a good explanation as magic, though. You just start swapping the word 'magic' out for 'nature' and presto, you have pantheism disguised as materialistic science.

Dark matter detected here:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/dark_matter_proven.html

Detection of dark energy here:

http://supernova.lbl.gov/PDFs/PhysicsTodayArticle.pdf

Dark energy is no different than the detection of gravity. We "observe" gravity by the effect it has on bodies of mass. For dark energy, we observe it by observing how it accelerates the expansion of the universe.

Wrong, those are invented objects used to rescue the big-bang model. Their "effects" can only be inferred based on the assumption that the big-bang model is true. If the big-bang model is untrue, then these "effects" go up in a puff of smoke and never existed anywhere but the imagination.

As credentialed astronomers and physicists have attested to:

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory...

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry."

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html

This is the danger of entrenched dogma in science. When you enshrine a theory, researchers then begin surrounding the theory with ad-hoc devices to protect it. The ad-hoc devices are meaningless if the central theory is wrong, but at the same time the ad-hoc devices are meant to protect the central theory from falsification.

And the worst part is that the mainstream public-relations 'science' mafia and its underlings then go on to beat the public over the head with the belief that the orthodox theory is beyond dispute. Then the parties controlling the theory get more funding. This is how things work. It's a racket.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're right. "I don't know, but nature did it somehow and someday we'll find out how", is about a good explanation as magic, though.

"I don't know" is a thousand times better than "God did it". With "I don't know" there is a push to find an answer. With "God did it" there is a reason to not look for the real answer.

Wrong, those are invented objects used to rescue the big-bang model.

Baloney. Those are no more fixes than gravity is a fix to moving in a straight line. They are detected in exactly the same way that gravity is detected.

 

[lifepsyop]

Mammal-like reptiles.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/...tures/non-dino-reptiles/mammal-like-reptiles/

Again, you are ignoring the facts.

I see, so you consider artistic renderings to be "facts". Really it is pretty amazing that you would direct readers to that page telling them they are about to see "facts"...

 

[Loudmouth]

I see, so you consider artistic renderings to be "facts".

I consider the fossils with a mixture of mammal and reptile features to be facts.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Mammal-like reptiles.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/...tures/non-dino-reptiles/mammal-like-reptiles/

Again, you are ignoring the facts.

Can you provide the facts?

 

[lifepsyop]

Baloney. Those are no more fixes than gravity is a fix to moving in a straight line. They are detected in exactly the same way that gravity is detected.

Not really. Whatever gravity is, its effect is always measurable and impossible to avoid. However, if the big-bang model of expansion of the universe is incorrect, then the effect of "dark energy" was nothing but a figment of your imagination.

Why am I not surprised you would try and conflate these two things together?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you provide the facts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...d_.28.22mammal-like_reptiles.22.29_to_mammals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals#Synapsids

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html

 

[Loudmouth]

Not really. Whatever gravity is, its effect is always measurable and impossible to avoid.

As are the effects of dark matter and dark energy.

However, if the big-bang model of expansion of the universe is incorrect, then the effect of "dark energy" was nothing but a figment of your imagination.

The BB model is correct. The relationship between distance and redshift is very, very real. The CMB is very real. The expansion is directly observed in the redshift data, as is the acceleration of the expansion.

 

[lifepsyop]

The BB model is correct.

I'm sure you believe it is.

The relationship between distance and redshift is very, very real. The CMB is very real. The expansion is directly observed in the redshift data, as is the acceleration of the expansion.

Oh okay.. there is a "very real relationship". There's another one of those ambiguous phrases that could mean just about anything.

And isn't it funny that actual credentialed astronomers and physicists claim that there are problems with the big-bang and redshift observations?

"...Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry..."

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm sure you believe it is.

The evidence demonstrates that it is.

Oh okay.. there is a "very real relationship". There's another one of those ambiguous phrases that could mean just about anything.

We could go with statistically significant correlation, if you prefer.

And isn't it funny that actual credentialed astronomers and physicists claim that there are problems with the big-bang and redshift observations?

"...Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry..."

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html

And again with the small minority that is swamped by the large majority. There will always be a minority that tries to pick apart the science. We encourage it. That doesn't make the evidence go away.

 

[lifepsyop]

The evidence demonstrates that it is.

Certainly not. Anyways, you just compared 'dark energy' to gravity, so needless to say your opinion of the evidence should be taken with a grain of salt.

And again with the small minority that is swamped by the large majority. There will always be a minority that tries to pick apart the science. We encourage it. That doesn't make the evidence go away.

Sorry, that excuse doesn't work if the minority of experts in the field are simply pointing out a specific observation. In this case, the discordance in the big-bang redshift predictions and actual redshift observations (The very data you just tried to claim as evidence for the Big-Bang.)

If you have to resort to demonstrably false claims to support your theory, then you are clearly not in a position to accurately appraise the strength of the theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Certainly not.

Yes, most certainly.

Anyways, you just compared 'dark energy' to gravity, so needless to say your opinion of the evidence should be taken with a grain of salt.

Why? We detect gravity by the effect it has on massive bodies. We do the same with dark energy.

Sorry, that excuse doesn't work if the minority of experts in the field are simply pointing out a specific observation.

"A" specific observation? Don't you mean ignoring the bulk of the observations?

 

[lifepsyop]

Why? We detect gravity by the effect it has on massive bodies. We do the same with dark energy.

I think you also believe that reptile-mammal evolution must be true because we observe the effect of artists rendering cartoons of it. I'm starting to get onto your wavelength, loudmouth.

"A" specific observation? Don't you mean ignoring the bulk of the observations?

Yes, astronomers and physicists make a specific observation of redshift that directly refutes your characterization of it harmonizing with the big-bang model.

And then you claim the big-bang model is correct because of redshift.

It isn't exactly rocket-science to see that you're not particularly concerned with the actual scientific evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think you also believe that reptile-mammal evolution must be true because we observe the effect of artists rendering cartoons of it.

Why are you ignoring the fossils?

Neil Shubin is going to hunt you down.

Yes, astronomers and physicists make a specific observation of redshift that directly refutes your characterization of it harmonizing with the big-bang model.

Do you really think there is just one observation? Really?

What are the discordant observations you are referring to, and how do they compare to the concordant observations?

And then you claim the big-bang model is correct because of redshift.

Yes. The overwhelming percentage of the data is concordant.