Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[Delphiki]

YEA!
Someone with a brain.

Too bad that's a fallacy on your part (straw man), because nowhere in the Theory of Evolution does it show dogs evolve into cats or vice versa. It shows they share a common ancestor. There's a difference.

I also like how you don't even know that you were just being made fun of in the post you quoted.

 

[Delphiki]

Are you saying mankind observed this change from whatever common ancestor to dogs and cats, or is this completely hypothetical?

There wasn't a known man standing and watching a cat/dog ancestor mate and give birth to a cat or dog, no.

There is however, the fossil record, which is in every way as reliable as forensic science (in fact, it's nearly the same thing), which shows gradual transitions from as far back as Maelestes Gobiensis, a common ancestor to most (if not all) placental mammals on earth today.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Too bad that's a fallacy on your part (straw man), because nowhere in the Theory of Evolution does it show dogs evolve into cats or vice versa. It shows they share a common ancestor. There's a difference.

I also like how you don't even know that you were just being made fun of in the post you quoted.

Actually, it would be more an ad hominem... LOL

CAN'T YOU GET ANYTHING RIGHT!!!?!!! LOL My goodness...

Fine, the total common ancestor would be the first Macro-Micro-Organism, that eventually became EVERYTHING.

Has anyone observed a Macro-Micro-Organism become anything other than a Macro-Micro-Organism?

And if I am being made fun of, I hardly believe you would be the person to catch it.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Cabal http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-post56131186/#post56131186
Oh sure. I just wanted to see them dance around the issue. They've already been told that evolution works by speciation as listed, if they want to resort to anything else, it's a strawman.
Yes, but speciation does not change one species to a completely different species.

Yes it does. When a section of species A can no longer reproduce with the rest, it has become a new species, species B. The process that generates species B is speciation.

That is why I have given you the chance to give 1 observed example, otherwise, it has never been observed to happen, and is a complete hypothesis, right?

He gave you a whole list. If that’s too much to take in in one go, just look at the top one and ignore the rest. There’s really no reason to be repeating this claim when someone has answered it for you and you have refused to address it.

Originally Posted by Freodin http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-post56130977/#post56130977
Cabal, with your experience here you should know by now that when a creationist asks for a species evolving into a completely different species, they mean "into a completely different already existing species". The cat into dog variant, you know?
YEA!
Someone with a brain.

You do realise that cats giving birth to dogs would falsify evolution, right? That’s why we don’t ever see it – it’s impossible.

 

[HAPMinistries]

There is however, the fossil record, which is in every way as reliable as forensic science (in fact, it's nearly the same thing), which shows gradual transitions from as far back as Maelestes Gobiensis, a common ancestor to most (if not all) placental mammals on earth today.

And this forensic science you speak of, is it the same system that dated a living snail to be 27,000 years old?

And since we have a hypothesis of evolution, shouldn't we have observed this change to have happened 1 time?

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Delphiki http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-23/#post56131986
There is however, the fossil record, which is in every way as reliable as forensic science (in fact, it's nearly the same thing), which shows gradual transitions from as far back as Maelestes Gobiensis, a common ancestor to most (if not all) placental mammals on earth today.
And this forensic science you speak of, is it the same system that dated a living snail to be 27,000 years old?

Nope, because proper scientists are not foolish enough to make mistakes like radiometrically dating a living creature. If you understood anything about carbon dating you’d know why that wouldn’t work.

 

[Delphiki]

Actually, it would be more an ad hominem... LOL

CAN'T YOU GET ANYTHING RIGHT!!!?!!! LOL My goodness...

Uhh. That's kind of what ad hominem is, champ.

Fine, the total common ancestor would be the first Macro-Micro-Organism, that eventually became EVERYTHING.

Has anyone observed a Macro-Micro-Organism become anything other than a Macro-Micro-Organism?

Wait, wait.. Are you saying you actually accept that there is evidence for a common mammalian ancestor now and are just moving the goal post further back in time? Please tell me this is so. Because if it is, then I've finally accomplished part of my purpose for being on this forum.

And if I am being made fun of, I hardly believe you would be the person to catch it.

Did you miss the part where I did catch it and you didn't?

 

[HAPMinistries]

[/color]Yes it does. When a section of species A can no longer reproduce with the rest, it has become a new species, species B. The process that generates species B is speciation.

So if a person can not reproduce, they are a different species. Hmmmm Sounds like equivocation to me. I asked for one species to a completely different species. Evolution starts with a macro-micro-organism that became everything. Obviously we are very different than a macro-micro-organism. So i ask for one, just 1, observed instance of this type of change.

He gave you a whole list.

argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

You do realise that cats giving birth to dogs would falsify evolution, right? That’s why we don’t ever see it – it’s impossible.

I am not out to falsify evolution, condemn, or prove, I ask for 1 observed instance where one species became a completely different species. So far, only one person has had the intelligence to understand what is asked. You reverted to equivocation.

 

[Psudopod]

Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-23/#post56131993
[/COLOR]Yes it does. When a section of species A can no longer reproduce with the rest, it has become a new species, species B. The process that generates species B is speciation.
So if a person can not reproduce, they are a different species. Hmmmm Sounds like equivocation to me. I asked for one species to a completely different species. Evolution starts with a macro-micro-organism that became everything. Obviously we are very different than a macro-micro-organism. So i ask for one, just 1, observed instance of this type of change.

Evolution works on populations. If a population can no longer reproduce with it’s parent species it is a new species. I have no idea idea what you mean by macro-micro-organism.

Originally Posted by

Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-23/#post56131993
He gave you a whole list.

argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

I note you’ve neatly stripped out my suggestion to ignore all the examples except the top one. That would meet your request. Why won’t you address that one example?

Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7512301-23/#post56131993
You do realise that cats giving birth to dogs would falsify evolution, right? That’s why we don’t ever see it – it’s impossible.
I am not out to falsify evolution, condemn, or prove, I ask for 1 observed instance where one species became a completely different species. So far, only one person has had the intelligence to understand what is asked. You reverted to equivocation.

But what you asked for is impossible if evolution is true! Weren’t you the one complaining about asking for evidence of numbers in the alphabet? That’s what you are asking for.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Uhh. That's kind of what ad hominem is, champ.

YEA! You got one right, I'm proud of you.

Wait, wait.. Are you saying you actually accept that there is evidence for a common mammalian ancestor now and are just moving the goal post further back in time? Please tell me this is so. Because if it is, then I've finally accomplished part of my purpose for being on this forum.

Sadly, it is often Creationists who have to teach evolution to those who claim to support it. Like when you didn't know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis for example.

As I stated, and this group seems to want me to debate about, is that we do not empirically know, and evolution should be taught for what it is, a hypothesis, and not for what it is NOT, a Theory.

Throughout my posts I have asked for 1 instance of one species being observed to evolve into a completely different species. Now this HAS to happen in the hypothesis, otherwise, there would be only one species of life. I ask for one observed instance of this fully happening...

and every fallacy in the book has been thrown at me.

I have studied the equivocation fallacies of 'speciation', fruit flies that prefer no light, birds reproducing until they can not reproduce with the first type. What people do not get is you still have a fruit fly and you still have a bird, AND the process can be reversed and brought back to the original place. None of these qualify for what evolution teaches as complete changes of species.

I know there are none, but if you want to keep making yourselves look like idiots, continue.

Did you miss the part where I did catch it and you didn't?

It is only a 'catch' if I didn't understand the concept. Sadly, it took that post for you to catch up.

Now is evolution a hypothesis?

 

[HAPMinistries]

[/color]Nope, because proper scientists are not foolish enough to make mistakes like radiometrically dating a living creature. If you understood anything about carbon dating you’d know why that wouldn’t work.

I don't have to know anything about carbon dating to know the snail is not 27,000 years old.

But it has been done.

The 27,000 year old date comes from Riggs (1984, 224), who wrote:

Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO3- with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium. ​

 

[Cabal]

Yes, but speciation does not change one species to a completely different species.

Uh, yes - it does. All the members of the original population can no longer interbreed with the subset that speciated, whereas they could before. This has been observed, several times.

As has been pointed out several times, what you are actually requesting is a strawman, so there is no need to respond to it in defence of evolution as that is not what evolution claims.

That is why I have given you the chance to give 1 observed example, otherwise, it has never been observed to happen, and is a complete hypothesis, right?

It has been observed, which means evolution is a theory, as evolution is based on facts.

 

[HAPMinistries]

[/color]I note you’ve neatly stripped out my suggestion to ignore all the examples except the top one. That would meet your request. Why won’t you address that one example?

I am not going to pounce on the rest of your post because you actually have some wit.

A few posts up, I announce a few 'speciation' examples, and why I find them as not meeting the required criteria.

 

[Cabal]

argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

And I have already stated that I do not wish for it to slide by unchallenged - so stop lying.

 

[Delphiki]

So if a person can not reproduce, they are a different species. Hmmmm Sounds like equivocation to me.

1 - Equivocation is apparently not what you think it is.
2 - They have to be incapable of producing due to genetically inherited differences. However, this isn't the ONLY deciding factor, as you can actually cross-breed a tiger and a lion (which are different species) -- so there are exceptions.

I asked for one species to a completely different species. Evolution starts with a macro-micro-organism that became everything. Obviously we are very different than a macro-micro-organism. So i ask for one, just 1, observed instance of this type of change.

Maelestes Gobiensis eventually evolved in to both cats and dogs, among other things. Since I've told you this, now you're going on about microorganisms. Which, by the way, an organism is either micro or macro, depending on whether it is visible with the naked eye.

argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

Oh, you mean like where you asked for an example of speciation, then I provided it, so you changed the subject to "macro-micro-organisms"? Yeah.

I am not out to falsify evolution, condemn, or prove, I ask for 1 observed instance where one species became a completely different species. So far, only one person has had the intelligence to understand what is asked. You reverted to equivocation.

I'm telling you that nobody has directly observed one species becoming a completely different species. We observed the evidence. What you are asking for doesn't exist.

If we ever did see one species give birth to a completely different species, it would DISPROVE evolution. What part of gradual change don't you understand?

 

[Cabal]

I don't have to know anything about carbon dating to know the snail is not 27,000 years old.

But it has been done.

The 27,000 year old date comes from Riggs (1984, 224), who wrote:

Carbon-14 contents as low as 3.3 +/- 0.2 percent modern (apparent age, 27,000 years) measured from the shells of snails Melanoides tuberculatus living in artesian springs in southern Nevada are attributed to fixation of dissolved HCO3- with which the shells are in carbon isotope equilibrium. ​

Wow, so specimens that leach carbon into their bodies will give inaccurate readings?

Lack of dung, Watson's friend!

I'm sure no scientist ever thought to check for carbon contamination.....

 

[HAPMinistries]

Uh, yes - it does.

Um, no it doesn't.
You take a bird, reproduce with a different type, keep the process going until you have a type that can not reproduce with the first type of bird...

BUT YOU STILL HAVE A BIRD!

And you can reverse the process.

Major FAIL on your part.

It has been observed, which means evolution is a theory, as evolution is based on facts.

You can not provide 1 observed example, yet you claim you have.

THAT is what is wrong with Science vs Naturalism. Science would want actual evidence, not a fallacy based version.

 

[Cabal]

Um, no it doesn't.
You take a bird, reproduce with a different type, keep the process going until you have a type that can not reproduce with the first type of bird...

BUT YOU STILL HAVE A BIRD!

And you can reverse the process.

Major FAIL on your part.

"Bird" is not a species. Epic fail on your part - or another moving the goalposts fallacy. More dishonesty from you.

Really, give it up - you're making yourself look even more foolish with every post.

You can not provide 1 observed example, yet you claim you have.

I claim I provided a lot more than one....

THAT is what is wrong with Science vs Naturalism. Science would want actual evidence, not a fallacy based version.

I gave a list of actual evidence.

Address it, or stop dodging the issue and retract your statements.

 

[Cabal]

1 - Equivocation is apparently not what you think it is.

It would be quicker to list the fallacies that this guy DOES understand....

 

[HAPMinistries]

1 - Equivocation is apparently not what you think it is.

Ad hominem
And I guess there is a large breeding of Ligers... no wait...

Maelestes Gobiensis eventually evolved in to both cats and dogs

YOU OBSERVED Maelestes Gobiensis evolve into cats and dogs?
LOL nice

Give another award!

Oh, you mean like where you asked for an example of speciation, then I provided it, so you changed the subject to "macro-micro-organisms"? Yeah.

Subject was not changed, I gave you the origin of evolution. Glad I could help.

I'm telling you that nobody has directly observed one species becoming a completely different species.

Thank you, a rational thought.