Examples

[Zosimus]

Really? They were building plastic pipes in 3000 BC? Using heavy machinery for precision bending of heavy metal pipes in 3000 BC?

No, "they" (whoever "they" are) were not building plastic pipes in 3000 BC. Plastic pipes are not built. Nor do pipes require heavy machinery for precision bending.

Perhaps you should think a little further from time to time.
We build houses and so did the Romans.
To suggest that our construction technology is therefor the same the ancient Romans is downright bizar. Sometimes, I really don't know if you are serious or just trolling.

And sometimes I feel that I am talking to an illiterate three-year-old child.

Bizar is not a word. You must mean bizarre.

The pipes in the vast majority of Peruvian houses are made from copper. This is not surprising. Peru is the third largest copper producer in the world. The method for producing and using copper hasn't changed since the Bronze Age. Copper is melted and then stirred with green wood poles. This method, called poling, has been used for centuries. Incan metallurgy was quite advanced, and the earliest known use of copper smelting in Peru has been dated to 1432 B.C.E.

Copper pipes are formed the same way now as they were in the past. A cast is formed, often from sand, and the molten metal is poured into it. The earliest known use of casting is from Mesopotamia 3200 B.C.E.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I think the idea that only scientists who believe in evolution can be involved in empirical science is just another myth that is thrown in to try to discredit such folks. Many creation-believing scientists work in industry and universities, just as their atheistic counterparts do.

 

[lasthero]

I think the idea that only scientists who believe in evolution can be involved in empirical science is just another myth that is thrown in to try to discredit such folks. Many creation-believing scientists work in industry and universities, just as their atheistic counterparts do.

That's nice.

Are you going to define what a 'kind' is?

 

[Jimmy D]

Kindly demonstrate that plumbing is the result of peer-reviewed research.

Is it really necessary to derail every thread with your anti-science drivel? How is arguing about plumbing contributing in any meaningful way?

 

[Papias]

I think the idea that only scientists who believe in evolution can be involved in empirical science is just another myth that is thrown in to try to discredit such folks. Many creation-believing scientists work in industry and universities.....

You can think whatever you like, but making a claim requires evidence. Do you have any reason beyond pure fantasy that a significant percentage of scientists are creationists either in industry or Universities? If not, then a rational person would retract the claim. To be fair, I'll make a claim after you respond.

....just as their atheistic counterparts do.

Um, that's a falsehood. The data shows that most people who accept the reality of evolution are Christians, not atheists. Now you know it. Here's the data:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx


Also, you may have missed my earlier post, since it was just before the fold. Here it is, from post #40:

NBC wrote:

We hear a lot about evidence from the fossil record. ........ I'd like to ask those who consider themselves experts on these matters to provide, let's say, a dozen examples of creatures alive today that are definitely, without doubt, evolving into a totally different kind of creature.

Um, got your flux capacitor charged up?

To establish that a life form today is going to be a different creature in the future requires going to the future to see the new form of the creature. Thus, your question, which starts out talking about the fossil record, is incoherent. Sorry, but we don't have the fossil record of fossils produced in the future yet.

Your question is also incoherent because you don't define "kind". (Leviticus puts "kind" at the species level - do you accept that scripture?)

We hear a lot about evidence from the fossil record. Supporters of the theory of evolution claim that such evidence supports their beliefs. Supporters of [relatively] recent Divine creation, similarly claim that the evidence from the fossil record supports their beliefs too. Only one of these conclusions can be right, but no-one can actually prove that they have truth and the other side has the error. .... I'd like to ask those who consider themselves experts on these matters ...

One side could establish they are right if the experts weigh in and state that the fossil record shows one side is right. After all, since none of us are geologists, we'll have to go by the experts - as you sensibly state.

It turns out that practically all geologists agree that the fossil record spectacularly proves evolution, and that the biggest geological society, made up of tens of thousands of scientists, who know the fossil record better than I know my home town.

Here's their statement (there is more of it, including a section that says that the rocks also show that there was never a global flood, that the Earth is 4.6 Billion years old, etc.) -

The Geological Society of America recognizes that the evolution of life stands as one of the central concepts of modern science. Research in numerous fields of science during the past two centuries has produced an increasingly detailed picture of how life has evolved on Earth.

The rock record is a treasure trove of fossils, and by 1841, eighteen years before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, geologists had not only assembled much of the geologic time scale from physical relationships among bodies of rock, but they had also recognized that fossils document profound changes in life throughout Earth's history. Darwin showed that biological evolution provides an explanation for these changes. Since the time of Darwin, geologists have continued to uncover details of life's history, and biologists have continued to elucidate the process of evolution. Thus, our understanding of life's evolution has expanded through diverse kinds of research, much of it in fields unknown to Darwin such as genetics, biochemistry, and micropaleontology. In short, the concept of organic evolution has not only withstood the test of time — the ultimate test of any scientific construct — but it has been greatly enriched.​

I think your idea to simply ask the experts about the fossil record is a good idea. They gave a clear answer, confirming evolution.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Do you have any reason beyond pure fantasy that a significant percentage of scientists are creationists either in industry or Universities? If not, then a rational person would retract the claim.

I didn't say that "a significant percentage of scientists are creationists either in industry or Universities", I said that creation scientists often work in industry, just as their atheistic counterparts do - big difference.

he data shows that most people who accept the reality of evolution are Christians, not atheists.

What data? I find that hard to believe. To try to add evolution to God's word just confuses people and leads people to state things like you did when you stated that humans are just animals. I don't regard humans as just animals but special creatures created in the image of God, just as the Bible tells us.

To establish that a life form today is going to be a different creature in the future requires going to the future to see the new form of the creature. Thus, your question, which starts out talking about the fossil record, is incoherent. Sorry, but we don't have the fossil record of fossils produced in the future yet.

Your question is also incoherent because you don't define "kind". (Leviticus puts "kind" at the species level - do you accept that scripture?)

I specifically mentioned that I wasn't too interested in the fossil records as it's so open to speculation, as is any historical science.
I don't need to define kind, but if evolution were really happening, there ought to be plenty of examples in the real world to demonstrate this happening. Do you really believe that the grass under your feet or the nettles in the field are your distant relatives?

It turns out that practically all geologists agree that the fossil record spectacularly proves evolution

But not all, and that is the point. They [the majority] may agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are right.

 

[lasthero]

I don't need to define kind,

I'm sorry, but if you really want an example of what you're asking for, you really do. It's going to be hard to find something that you won't even properly define.

If you have two organisms, how do you determine if they're the same kind or not? If you can't answer this question, what exactly are you asking an example of?

 

[Zosimus]

You can think whatever you like, but making a claim requires evidence.

You have just claimed that making a claim requires evidence. However, you provided no evidence for that claim. Please either provide evidence or retract the claim.

 

[The Cadet]

I didn't say that "a significant percentage of scientists are creationists either in industry or Universities", I said that creation scientists often work in industry, just as their atheistic counterparts do - big difference.

Case in point: Andrew Snelling. Although by all accounts, there appear to be two men by the name of "Andrew Snelling" who live at the same place but have vastly different jobs and views about the age of the earth and modern geology. This is actually fairly common among pseudoscientists - for example, Judith Curry, who attacks global warming constantly on her blog, but never publishes anything that bucks the mainstream trend. Real scientists interested in real jobs in science must abandon their pseudoscience in order to do real jobs in science.

You have just claimed that making a claim requires evidence. However, you provided no evidence for that claim. Please either provide evidence or retract the claim.

Within this epistemological framework, claims require evidence. That's a baked-in part of the epistemology. Any valid claim requires evidence in order to be considered a valid claim within this framework. The reasons for this are numerous; most importantly: we must necessarily demand evidence for claims because if we do not, any claim with no evidence is trivially gainsaid by another claim with no evidence, which leads to a nonsensical epistemology.

 

[whois]

- for example, Judith Curry, who attacks global warming constantly on her blog, but never publishes anything that bucks the mainstream trend. Real scientists interested in real jobs in science must abandon their pseudoscience in order to do real jobs in science.

and what happens if judith curry does indeed find solid, irrefutable evidence that damages mainstream thought?
the very first thing that is trotted out is "judith believes in astrology" or some such.
this also happens quite often.
i understand the need of a certain amount of lag time between proposal and acceptance, but to destroy a persons character like this is way over the top.

 

[The Cadet]

and what happens if judith curry does indeed find solid, irrefutable evidence that damages mainstream thought?

I don't have a good answer for this hypothetical. However, it doesn't matter. The point is that right now, it's similar to the case with Snelling - it seems like there are two Judith Currys (one who publishes in peer review, and one who publishes on a blog), and if those two met, they wouldn't get along very well. That's where the intellectual dishonesty comes in. If Blog Judith is so convinced of what she's saying, why isn't it also reflected in Peer Review Judith's work? If Peer Review Judith's work is accurate, why isn't Blog Judith following that line of thought? It doesn't matter how right or wrong she is, it's just intellectually dishonest to promote one position when people can check you on your work and another position when people won't or are expecting you to say something different. Snelling's case is even more blatant.

 

[USincognito]

I'd like to ask those who consider themselves experts on these matters to provide, let's say, a dozen examples of creatures alive today that are definitely, without doubt, evolving into a totally different kind of creature.

Could you give us a hypothetical example of what you're asking for? If your question is based on a false premise, we need to know that and sort it out.

 

[whois]

It turns out that practically all geologists agree that the fossil record spectacularly proves evolution, and that the biggest geological society, made up of tens of thousands of scientists, who know the fossil record better than I know my home town.

geologists study rocks and their formations.
paleontologists are the ones that study fossils.
and as luck would have it, all paleontologists DO NOT believe the record "spectacularly proves" evolution, or more specifically darwinism.

the following upload is a paleontologist being interviewed by an evolutionist.

 

[Papias]

I didn't say that "a significant percentage of scientists are creationists either in industry or Universities", I said that creation scientists often work in industry, - big difference.
.

and

But not all, and that is the point. They [the majority] may agree, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are right.

and

geologists study rocks and their formations.
paleontologists are the ones that study fossils.
and as luck would have it, all paleontologists DO NOT believe the record "spectacularly proves" evolution, or more specifically darwinism.

the following upload is a paleontologist being interviewed by an evolutionist.

You are both missing the point that a few crackpots are irrelevant. Scientists are human beings, and in any large group of human beings, there will be some who are simply irrational - as we've seen, there are tens of thousands of geologists, and millions of scientists. So, if I were to claim well debunked things - like, say, that AIDS isn't caused by HIV, or that vaccines cause Autism, or that the holocaust didn't happen, or that the moon landing was a hoax, - I could find a few experts in the relevant fields to support that.

That's why finding a few relevant experts who support any idea doesn't help you. You need to show that a significant percentage do, otherwise you have no evidence from the experts. Project Steve shows that practically all biologists support evolution, and the GSA statement shows the same for geologists/paleontologists.

In fact, every time evolution deniers, or holocaust deniers, or vaccine deniers, or climate change deniers quote a lone expert, in contradiction to the scientific consensus, they admit that their arguments have no merit to those of us who understand simple math.

So go ahead - show us another example. They don't help you until you get into the thousands.

..... just as their atheistic counterparts do -.....
.

OK, now you saw the data I posted above showing that most of the support for evolution comes from Christians. That means that your line here repeats a falsehood after you have learned that it's false. That doesn't seem consistent with the 8th or 9th commandment (depending on what church you are in).

What data? I find that hard to believe. To try to add evolution to God's word just confuses people and leads people to state things like you did when you stated that humans are just animals. I don't regard humans as just animals but special creatures created in the image of God, just as the Bible tells us.

I gave the link to the Gallup data. Didn't you follow it? Reality doesn't care what you find hard to believe. If you find it hard to believe the world isn't flat, that doesn't make it flat. Evolution doesn't say that God didn't use evolution to create us in the image of God, so that's red herring. The point is that most of the support for evolution comes from Christians. You've got the data. Read it.

I specifically mentioned that I wasn't too interested in the fossil records as it's so open to speculation, as is any historical science.

First, most of your OP was about the fossil record, so if you are going to move the goal posts, at least be open about what you are doing. Secondly, "as is any historical science" shows that you have been fooled by the creationist line about historical science. Science shows what is likely true in any field of science. That's why evolution is as likely to be true as it is likely true that the US civil war happened.

I don't need to define kind, but if evolution were really happening, there ought to be plenty of examples in the real world to demonstrate this happening. Do you really believe that the grass under your feet or the nettles in the field are your distant relatives?

As others have pointed out repeatedly, you do, because you are asking for evidence that one kind is evolving into another.

You also ignored my question - do you deny the scripture in Leviticus that says that kind is at the species level or lower?

Do you really believe that the grass under your feet or the nettles in the field are your distant relatives?

It's not a belief, it's knowledge. Just as I know that the US Civil War actually happened, I know that evolution is real, and that yes, grass and nettles are relatives. Heck, grass and humans are relatives. Your dog fido and the broccoli on your plate are relatives. All life on earth is on the same family tree, a family tree that is available for you to learn.

Here is one place you can learn about your family.
http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

In Christ Jesus-

Papias

 

[whois]

So go ahead - show us another example. They don't help you until you get into the thousands.

i'm sure galileo was "a thousand people" as was barbara mcclintok.

secondly, eldredge was far from being a crackpot.

BTW, why do you associate "evolution deniers" with stuff like this?
eldredge was reporting the facts he uncovered in his research, and he was far from being an "evolution denier".

 

[Zosimus]

Within this epistemological framework, claims require evidence. That's a baked-in part of the epistemology. Any valid claim requires evidence in order to be considered a valid claim within this framework. The reasons for this are numerous; most importantly: we must necessarily demand evidence for claims because if we do not, any claim with no evidence is trivially gainsaid by another claim with no evidence, which leads to a nonsensical epistemology.

There's a phrase for that. It's called:

1. Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

I have a superior epistemological framework.

Everything printed on this napkin is true. All other claims are false.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Could you give us a hypothetical example of what you're asking for? If your question is based on a false premise, we need to know that and sort it out.

Well, we regularly see the so-called evolutionary tree of life in textbooks, etc. It's presented as fact regarding the way that the main lifeform groups on this planet have progressed over the supposed millions of years, so I would like to know what creatures that are living today can demonstrate that the story in the pretty trees is really happening all around us. If it's not possible to do that for whatever reason, then it's just a story based on belief about what the evidence in the physical world is really indicating about the past.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

OK, now you saw the data I posted above showing that most of the support for evolution comes from Christians.

I'll reply to your other points later as I don't have time now, but having had a look at the link you posted, I would say that all it shows is that generally, creation(ism) is a more popular concept than evolution(ism), so far from being a crackpot idea, it has many adherents - obviously by people who can spot a myth when they see one.

 

[The Cadet]

I'll reply to your other points later as I don't have time now, but having had a look at the link you posted, I would say that all it shows is that generally, creation(ism) is a more popular concept than evolution(ism), so far from being a crackpot idea, it has many adherents - obviously by people who can spot a myth when they see one.

Wait, wait, wait. You're telling me that creationism is attractive to people who can spot a myth?

 

[USincognito]

Well, we regularly see the so-called evolutionary tree of life in textbooks, etc. It's presented as fact regarding the way that the main lifeform groups on this planet have progressed over the supposed millions of years, so I would like to know what creatures that are living today can demonstrate that the story in the pretty trees is really happening all around us. If it's not possible to do that for whatever reason, then it's just a story based on belief about what the evidence in the physical world is really indicating about the past.

You merely restated your question and added a bunch of vacuous hyperbole. As make my request one more time, could you have us an example (or two) of hypothetical observations that you would consider supporting of evolution and common descent. And let me offer some guidance - if you're wanting to see an iguana hatching a clutch of puppies, then we need to first talk about what evolution is and is not before continuing.