Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[Ophiolite]

You appear to be using the word "ape" as an insult. Technically it is not an insult since you are an ape. As is every other poster here. And I don't think you understand the word "recalcitrant" either.

No. He was being polite. My "identifier" below my forum name is "recalcitrant procrastinating ape". (I think it's moderately accurate, if a little pretentious in its self deprecation.) You may not have noticed it. I think Ronald was simply amused by it and chose to highlight it in his reply - a reply that was a courteous withdrawal from the thread.

 

[pitabread]

Romans 16:18
For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.

The irony.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

When you use joke sites you only make a joke of yourself.

To even work at creation.com one must swear not to use the scientific method. That makes them all but worthless in a scientific debate.

How would you define the scientific method?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. He was being polite. My "identifier" below my forum name is "recalcitrant procrastinating ape". (I think it's moderately accurate, if a little pretentious in its self deprecation.) You may not have noticed it. I think Ronald was simply amused by it and chose to highlight it in his reply - a reply that was a courteous withdrawal from the thread.

I missed that and I am truly surprised that he could be polite.

Edit: And I edited that post by acknowledging this and apologizing.

 

[Speedwell]

How would you define the scientific method?

However defined, it does not include swearing that nothing which contradicts a literal reading of Genesis may be discovered or concluded.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

However defined, it does not include swearing that nothing which contradicts a literal reading of Genesis may be discovered or concluded.

I never thought it did.

 

[Occams Barber]

How would you define the scientific method?

A flow chart may make it a little easier to understand. Source is Encyclopaedia Brittanica




OB

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would you define the scientific method?

Good question. The scientific method is a problem solving mechanism that relies on forming testable hypotheses and then trying to disprove them. Here is a simplified flow chart, but there are reasonable alternatives:

Please note, one has to follow the evidence. One does not get to assume an answer and try to get the evidence to fit it.

A question that I like to ask is:

Based upon your idea's own merits what reasonable test could possibly refute it?

If one cannot answer that question one does not have a scientific concept and by definition cannot have any scientific evidence for it.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Creationists should just be happy that now that Elpistostege has filled the gap between Tiktaalik and Acanthostege, there are now two gaps on either side of it.

I don't know any serious creationist that uses that argument
Does a 'transitional form' replace one gap with two gaps? - creation.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never thought it did.

But I hope you do realize that one cannot claim that no matter what Genesis is correct and must be interpreted literally and at the same time claim to be doing "science" . Science does not rule out Genesis ahead of time, in fact it is still barely possible that evidence could be found for the stories in Genesis. Though that has not happened yet.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The irony.

Here's some more irony:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

— 2 Timothy 4:3-4 KJV​

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know any serious creationist that uses that argument
Does a 'transitional form' replace one gap with two gaps? - creation.com

it has been a while, but it used to be a common tactic of theirs. But even creationists can learn sometimes.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Good question. The scientific method is a problem solving mechanism that relies on forming testable hypotheses and then trying to disprove them. Here is a simplified flow chart, but there are reasonable alternatives:

Please note, one has to follow the evidence. One does not get to assume an answer and try to get the evidence to fit it.

A question that I like to ask is:

Based upon your idea's own merits what reasonable test could possibly refute it?

If one cannot answer that question one does not have a scientific concept and by definition cannot have any scientific evidence for it.

Anti-creationism illogic editorial - creation.com
How could you refute it? You could provide an example of evolution happening.

 

[Speedwell]

Anti-creationism illogic editorial - creation.com
How could you refute it? You could provide an example of evolution happening.

And what would that be? The main event in evolution is speciation, which has been demonstrated. Repeated speciation events account fully for the larger patterns of diversity which we observe.

The biggest problem I see in that article is the same one we have been dealing with in this thread for the past several days. Namely, the conflation of biblical-literalist creationism with Christianity, and the assumption that a rejection of that creationism is an attack on Christianity itself.

 

[Strathos]

And what would that be? The main event in evolution is speciation, which has been demonstrated. Repeated speciation events account fully for the larger patterns of diversity which we observe.

The biggest problem I see in that article is the same one we have been dealing with in this thread for the past several days. Namely, the conflation of biblical-literalist creationism with Christianity, and the assumption that a rejection of that creationism is an attack on Christianity itself.

Imagine if every scientific discovery about a new planet or star was immediately denigrated as a plot to disprove Christianity, because the Bible doesn't specifically mention all of those planets and stars, or how large and far away they are.

Or if every discovery of a new archaeological site was dismissed because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible.

That would be pretty silly, right?

So why does it happen with every discovery of a new fossil?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anti-creationism illogic editorial - creation.com
How could you refute it? You could provide an example of evolution happening.

Not necessarily. That is a false dichotomy. And why do you keep linking to a site that is all but worthless? You have in effect admitted to no evidence for creationism.

Creation "scientists" tend to be cowards when it comes to their beliefs. Actual scientists form tests that say "If this happens, I am wrong".

And we have observed macroevolution in real time. Macroevolution is by definition anything above the species level and scientists have observed speciation. Of course creationists try to redefine the term,but since they did not invent it they are in no position to redefine it.

 

[Kylie]

Actual scientists form tests that say "If this happens, I am wrong".

Quoted because this is so good.

 

[Gene2memE]

Darwin was confused

Confused about what specifically?

Darwin was a leading light in developing an entirely new field of science (evolutionary biology). It is therefore totally unsurprising he was confused about some things in his research and hypotheses. He was, for his day, at the very leading edge of a scientific revolution. In a way, he's very comparable to the scientists that developed quantum mechanics just before the start of the 1900s, or the astronomers and astrophysicists who developed the big bang model in the 1930s and 1930s.

leaned on his own understanding, which was a stretch of his imagination.

Of course he leaned on his own understanding - he was one of the people doing the basic, pioneering research. He developed the theory of natural selection and sexual selection, and did early work on the biological basis for emotions, comparative psychology and a whole lot of non-evolution related topics across biology, geology and animal domestication

Didn't he think a cell was just a jelly-like substance with little complexity.

Darwin had little to no knowledge of the structure and make up of the cell - or at least nothing he put down on paper.

His own hypothesis on inheritance was 'pangensis' which proposed that cells shed 'particles of inheritance' and passed from them parent to offspring while it was developing. This was replaced by the 'germ-plasma' hypothesis after Darwin died, and then with Mendellian genetics.

There's a great quote from Francisco Ayala: "Darwin didn't know 99 percent of what we know. But the 1 percent he did know was the most important part."

All things are complex, even the Paremecium, it's flagella is more complex than the space shuttle.

How are you measuring complexity?

What metric are you using to compare the complexity of dissimilar objects?

 

[xianghua]

^ This,



^ is directly contradicted by this.

If you are trying to claim that evolution says that a dog can evolve into a cat (both being extant species), then that demonstrates you don't understand evolution at all.

lets see. first: notice that i didnt said anything about extant species. i also didnt said that it need to happen in a single step. second: can you give me a clculation that shows why a dog cant evolve into cat?

 

[xianghua]

No, it's more like saying "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"..

no its not. lets represent fossils by numbers. so in this case instead of finding the order 12345 we find 15234. this doesnt fit with the evolutionery order.