For newbies....

[Melange_Thief]

Today at 08:45 PM Badfish said this in Post #19
I said I'll look, but what difference does it make? There are many evolutionists turned creationists and visa versa. 

There probably are evolutionists turned creationist, Badfish, but what we all want is a creationist biologist. 

 

[OldBadfish]

Today at 08:46 PM Cantuar said this in Post #20



Well, fiat creation ex nihilo certainly can't.

Exactly what the "something from nothing" aspect of the first law has to do with evolution is anybody's guess. However, if it's true that the universe started at a singularity, then the laws of nature don't apply till after the start. In which case the attempt to apply the first law to the singularity is meaningless.

What kind of singularity? It would still have to contain matter or the ingredients for matter.

Yeah, I'm barking up the wrong tree, I think I have derailed this thread I will make a new one.

 

[Arikay]

Exactly. There are people who didnt understand evolution, that then turned creationist.

However I have yet to see a biologist (the field evolution is in) turn against evolution, and I would like to see one.

 

[OldBadfish]

Today at 08:48 PM Melange_Thief said this in Post #21




There probably are evolutionists turned creationist, Badfish, but what we all want is a creationist biologist. 

What do you want a name? A group? Even if I found such a person who would believe him? Sciences and the pursuit of knowledge don't give up.

 

[OldBadfish]

Today at 08:53 PM Arikay said this in Post #23

Exactly. There are people who didnt understand evolution, that then turned creationist.

However I have yet to see a biologist (the field evolution is in) turn against evolution, and I would like to see one.

They can't they are smitten with the feverish pursuit to find the missing links.

 

[Cantuar]

Arikay, wouldn't Duane Gish count as a biologist who turned against evolution? At least, he had a normal research career before getting into professional creationism, although I don't know when he decided evolution was the work of the devil.

Badfish, a big bang singularity is the point when the universe starts, so time is zero. Also, things like the density of the universe become infinite. Once you start having to plug zeroes and infinities into the equations for the laws of nature, you get totally meaningless results. Cosmologists are looking for other models that avoid all the infinities; I think that's what superstrings and branes and multiverses may be about, but cosmology is so far beyond me that I'm not the best person to be discussing this.

Here's a page on big bang cosmology, which looks understandable:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html

Here's something about the big bang and biblical creation if you're interested:

http://www.counterbalance.net/ghc-bb/creat-body.html

If you want to know more about it, check out books by John Gribbin. That guy is yery good at making physics appear to be accessible and interesting (no idea how he does it, but I'm glad he does).

 

[Arikay]

Sure, that would be One.

Next I would like to see a biologist who becomes a creationist and doesnt write a whole bunch of books to sell.

Today at 09:07 PM Cantuar said this in Post #26

Arikay, wouldn't Duane Gish count as a biologist who turned against evolution? At least, he had a normal research career before getting into professional creationism, although I don't know when he decided evolution was the work of the devil.

Badfish, a big bang singularity is the point when the universe starts, so time is zero. Also, things like the density of the universe become infinite. Once you start having to plug zeroes and infinities into the equations for the laws of nature, you get totally meaningless results. Cosmologists are looking for other models that avoid all the infinities; I think that's what superstrings and branes and multiverses may be about, but cosmology is so far beyond me that I'm not the best person to be discussing this.

Here's a page on big bang cosmology, which looks understandable:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html

Here's something about the big bang and biblical creation if you're interested:

http://www.counterbalance.net/ghc-bb/creat-body.html

If you want to know more about it, check out books by John Gribbin. That guy is yery good at making physics appear to be accessible and interesting (no idea how he does it, but I'm glad he does).

 

[notto]

Today at 05:07 AM Cantuar said this in Post #26

Arikay, wouldn't Duane Gish count as a biologist who turned against evolution? At least, he had a normal research career before getting into professional creationism, although I don't know when he decided evolution was the work of the devil.

I think Gish earned his degree in biology specifically to be able to claim to be a creationist/biologist. He was already a creationist when he received the degree. He was a Methodist and then became a Regular Baptist (not exactly theistic evolutionists) He is not a convert. Of course it would seem that this would discount the claim of discrimination in higher eduction. If he can get a degree, where is the discrimination toward creationists?

 

[Cantuar]

Next I would like to see a biologist who becomes a creationist and doesnt write a whole bunch of books to sell.

Sorry, can't help you there. You know, since the Great Atheist Conspiracy is keeping them locked out of the peer-reviewed journals, what choice do they have?

 

[OldBadfish]

The GAC is behind that too??

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yesterday at 04:39 AM Badfish said this in Post #18


I wouldn't say dishonesty, as his quote is semi coloned, indicating a seperate statement followed by qualifying statements.

So you apparently think that if Scientist X says "It looks like A is true but actually B is true" it is not dishonest to quote Scientist X in the following way

"It looks like A is true", Scientist X,

This is exactly what you did and in my opinion it is dishonest.  I have seen this over and over.   Young Earth Creationists must spend a great deal of time pouring over the scientific literature looking for quotes to take out of context. 

The Frumious Bandersnatch 

  

 

 

[Orihalcon]

a dishonest quote would be just taking the "... A is true" bit.  taking "it looks like A is true" would be misleading.  i guess that could count as dishonesty too... =P

 

[Gracchus]

Creationist are very practiced at quoting out of context. They've been quoting their holy book out of context for years. Then they claim it's prophecy.

 

[OldBadfish]

Today at 12:20 AM Gracchus said this in Post #33

Creationist are very practiced at quoting out of context. They've been quoting their holy book out of context for years. Then they claim it's prophecy.

Reaaaalllly, care to show any evidence for that claim?

 

[OldBadfish]

Yesterday at 06:11 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #31



So you apparently think that if Scientist X says "It looks like A is true but actually B is true" it is not dishonest to quote Scientist X in the following way

"It looks like A is true", Scientist X,

This is exactly what you did and in my opinion it is dishonest.  I have seen this over and over.   Young Earth Creationists must spend a great deal of time pouring over the scientific literature looking for quotes to take out of context. 

The Frumious Bandersnatch 

  

 

Hey Bandersnatch, stop dwelling on the Sagan quote, it's gone. Unless you want to break it down and see how the first part of the sentence is a statement in itself. Sagan said the fossil record could be consistent with a Great Designer; however in his opinion not an efficient designer. The fact remains, because of his lack of knowledge and evidence the rest of the quote was all opinion, as was the first.

He still acknowledged that the fossil record could be consistent with a Great Designer.

How long are you going to dwell on that? I could come up with some more unsure things Carl Sagan said in full context that contradict his philosophy, that would limit his credibility as being nothing more than a professional assumptionist.

I wouldn't worry about it though, those missing transitional bones and fossils will turn up sometime...

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I wouldn't worry about it though, those missing transitional bones and fossils will turn up sometime...

Of course you are right. More are turning up regularly. I was around this debate when creationists were very fond of quoting Darwin's prediction that legged ancestors to whales would be found and saying "Look, no legged whales, Darwin was wrong". Of course Darwin wasn't wrong and legged ancestors of whales have now been found.

http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2001/Sep01/r091701c.html
http://www.findarticles.com/m1200/12_160/79196961/p1/article.jhtml
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Pakicetidnew.html http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm

I suspect the pace of new discovery will slow down now since the most productive area to find them is in Pakistan, but that doesn't mean that they won't be discovered eventually.

Here are the names of some of those found to date.

Eoconodon, Microclaenodon , Dissacus, Hapalodectes, Pakicetus , Ambulocetus natans, Rodhocetus. Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani, Prozeuglodon , Dorudon intermedius, Agorophius, Prosqualodon, Kentriodon , Aetiocetus and Mesocetus

Of course not all are transitional to modern whales but several are.

It seems to me that the "no transistional fossils" schtick is exactly the sort of long refuted creationist claim that Freodin was referring to in the first post on this thread. 


The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[OldBadfish]

Well to be fair we have to consider the lack of transitional fossils and evidence. That is a very integral part of the evolutionary theory, once those start showing up, then evolution becomes a lot more credible.

So it isn't unfair for creationists to use this and other shortcomings of evolutionary science to point out that the theory is incomplete.

Thanks for the links, those are interesting, hopefully I will be able to fully check them out tonight.

However I am on a Simon says mission at the arcade here, I am confident I can beat the top score, I don't know how in the world someone got 52, but I will focus and hopefully beat it tonight.

 

[Arikay]

But there isnt a lack of transitional fossils.

Only a lack of belief from creationists. I have heard a number of times from creationists after they are shown a transitional fossil, that its not Really a transitional fossil. But they never explain what one is.
This lack of definition that creationists give to what really is a transitional fossil, allows them to dismiss any evidence they find as "not good enough"

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well to be fair we have to consider the lack of transitional fossils and evidence. That is a very integral part of the evolutionary theory, once those start showing up, then evolution becomes a lot more credible.

To be fair, there are quite a number of transitional fosssils. They have been showing up for a long time and quite a few have shown up lately regarding both whale and bird evolution. 

 

Thanks for the links, those are interesting, hopefully I will be able to fully check them out tonight.

Here are a few more for you to ponder.

First one refuting some of AiG's misleading claims about recent whale fossil finds.

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie030.html 

Here are some general links on transitional fossil. I expect that many have seen these before but here they are again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossils.html

If some of the fossil hominids in the link below were not transitional why are they identified as either apes or human depending on which creationist misidentified them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html

Concering the theraspid-mammal transition.

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

If  you are a YEC maybe you can explain why the flood buried these critters in an order that just happened to mimic evolution.  Of course I have never seen a YEC successfully explain anything in the fossil record using "flood geology" so I doubt it. 

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[OldBadfish]

Today at 04:07 PM Arikay said this in Post #38

But there isnt a lack of transitional fossils.

Only a lack of belief from creationists. I have heard a number of times from creationists after they are shown a transitional fossil, that its not Really a transitional fossil. But they never explain what one is.
This lack of definition that creationists give to what really is a transitional fossil, allows them to dismiss any evidence they find as "not good enough"

Arikay, not just creationists, there are many evolutionary scientists that will admit not all the pieces are there.