-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Lets try this again
- Thread starter fieldsofwind
- Start date
fieldsofwind, if you want to play the "linking game", I'd be more than happy to drown you in references to texts, articles, and scientific papers in favor of evolution.
How many links you can pull out of hat isn't doing anything to support your argument. If there are specific claims in those articles that you feel support your argument, then reference them. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time.
Upvote
0
seesaw, in the interest of not letting this spiral into a ridiculous "link war", I'd ask that you refrain from making point blank comments like that, unless you're willing to back them up.
The fact is, people can cite links to try to prove anything. If we want to actually discuss the issues, then please, let's discuss them.
Upvote
0
Posted by Pete: "Menton also makes mention of two more points, "recent fission track studies of zircons from the KBS tuff indicate an age of 3 m.y.o" and "Approximately 8 out of 10 specimens ("dates") are discarded by radiometric dating labs because they are well out of range of age they 'ought to be' given there source in the geological column.", which are repeated in Pitman's essay. Sadly, there is no reference for either claim, so I have no way to check up on the validity of those comments."
Doesn't mean that he has no idea of what he's talking about now does it
Posted by Pete: "Anyway, fieldsofwind, your original assertion was (and I would assume, still is) that the hominid fossil record (for that matter, the fossil record entirely) lacks any kind of transitional fossils."
Yes pete... that is still the claim... and no... your articles do not provide the necessary evidence of transitions that you would like." They are flawed at best... they are pieces of bones, pieced together and guesstimated at being this or that. And the record is extremely doubtful given the existence of apes today, and the previously existing apes that are now extinct. these creatures are all small (somewhat)... and the links that people imagine there being are just that... imaginary... it is illogical to think that these mutations just happened, even just one in a vast population, considering that all of the 'mutations' in people today are negative ones
this is a link concerning something else you may be interested in...
http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html
Doesn't mean that he has no idea of what he's talking about now does it
Posted by Pete: "Anyway, fieldsofwind, your original assertion was (and I would assume, still is) that the hominid fossil record (for that matter, the fossil record entirely) lacks any kind of transitional fossils."
Yes pete... that is still the claim... and no... your articles do not provide the necessary evidence of transitions that you would like." They are flawed at best... they are pieces of bones, pieced together and guesstimated at being this or that. And the record is extremely doubtful given the existence of apes today, and the previously existing apes that are now extinct. these creatures are all small (somewhat)... and the links that people imagine there being are just that... imaginary... it is illogical to think that these mutations just happened, even just one in a vast population, considering that all of the 'mutations' in people today are negative ones
this is a link concerning something else you may be interested in...
http://www.nwcreation.net/anomalies.html
Upvote
0
yes pete and I've tried that (discussing)... which resulted in your 'links' so I have been giving a few of my own.
How about we discuss these things WITHOUT LINKS like I originally hoped for!
Past some stuff in with your own reply ... heck past the entire thing... I don't care... discussion is going to inevitably go to links because you do no scientific experimentation of your own.
How about we discuss these things WITHOUT LINKS like I originally hoped for!
Past some stuff in with your own reply ... heck past the entire thing... I don't care... discussion is going to inevitably go to links because you do no scientific experimentation of your own.
Upvote
0
lithium.
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2002
- 4,662
- 4
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Sure i like discussing theories, but when people just paste from stuff that has no scientific evidnece to back up what they post (just like you said pete) but almost say that the scientific evidnece ( that has been tested) that we show isn't right.
The theory of evolution has been tested in scinece labs, and found that it exist, and there is real scientific evidnece that fossils from dinosaus and mans ancestors are millions of years old.
The theory of evolution has been tested in scinece labs, and found that it exist, and there is real scientific evidnece that fossils from dinosaus and mans ancestors are millions of years old.
Upvote
0
On the other hand... if we get into radiometric dating... I can hold my own until we get to the topic of isochrons... that requires graphs and such... and the links are the only way I know how to explain my point to you...
so there will be some there... thats for sure..
take care
FOW
so there will be some there... thats for sure..
take care
FOW
Upvote
0
lithium.
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2002
- 4,662
- 4
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Why do you need links if you really studied the stuff you are talking about you don't need links.
I post links, but mostly only when i havn't studied it i post from places like mit.edu, and nasa.gov. and places like that.
I post links, but mostly only when i havn't studied it i post from places like mit.edu, and nasa.gov. and places like that.
Upvote
0
In my link: "The dating of KNM-ER 1470 was caught up in the dating problems of the KBS Tuff (a layer of volcanic residue, this one named after Kay Behrensmeyer) and the Tulu Bor Tuff beneath it. The first dating attempts of the KBS Tuff by means of a potassium-argon resulted in a scatter of dates; obviously not a good sign. Later attempts were made with 40Ar/39Ar step heating and these gave the quite early dates which seemed good to Leakey (a family thing there; Leakey is pretty good on the subject with the exception of expecting, like his folks, to find a very early *Homo*). They did seem out of step to most others, however, and, more critically, they didn't match up
with the faunal evidence."
Posted by Pete: "What I find so interesting about this whole discussion, is this seems to be yet another example of science correcting itself. Anomalous results were found, so the subject was tested and re-tested to paint a broader picture. It would take me awhile to check into all those references to the dating of KNM-ER 1470, but I am convinced that the dating of KNM-ER 1470 was certainly not "forced" to be about 1.9 million years as the author would have you believe."
Pete.. it isn't the isolated incident that is the problem...
the problem is that there was a flood... I believe it.... and if you don't that's fine...I have posted evidence for it... and no one has been able to dispute that evidence... I will post more of it if anyone wants to see it. The effects of a global flood among other things that occured in the past can have or could have had a great effect on the contents of rocks based on how the are 'dated'. That along with the information that I have posted pertaining to how pressure is able to do very crazy things inside of rocks leaves one with a very good base to argue against the current dating methods... more will come on this later
with the faunal evidence."
Posted by Pete: "What I find so interesting about this whole discussion, is this seems to be yet another example of science correcting itself. Anomalous results were found, so the subject was tested and re-tested to paint a broader picture. It would take me awhile to check into all those references to the dating of KNM-ER 1470, but I am convinced that the dating of KNM-ER 1470 was certainly not "forced" to be about 1.9 million years as the author would have you believe."
Pete.. it isn't the isolated incident that is the problem...
the problem is that there was a flood... I believe it.... and if you don't that's fine...I have posted evidence for it... and no one has been able to dispute that evidence... I will post more of it if anyone wants to see it. The effects of a global flood among other things that occured in the past can have or could have had a great effect on the contents of rocks based on how the are 'dated'. That along with the information that I have posted pertaining to how pressure is able to do very crazy things inside of rocks leaves one with a very good base to argue against the current dating methods... more will come on this later
Upvote
0
No, it means he wrote something down that he wants people to take at face value without providing anything to back it up. I could easily claim that 8 out of 10 creationists have never been to school. Unfortunately, it's a meaningless statement at best without something to qualify it.
You seem to be trying to make out palentologists as a bunch of imbeciles. Yes, a lot of fossils are pieces of bone, pieced together, etc, etc. As far as "guesstimating" what they are, that's only after a lot of detailed research into the subject. There's a reason they have degrees in their fields, and we don't.
As far as "necessary evidence of transitions" goes, what WOULD you like then?
Whether there are apes alive today has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
A few points. First of all, claiming "It's illogical" is called an argument from incredulity. It can basically be summed up as, "if I can't believe something, it can't be true". It's a very weak stance to take, because it only shows your lack of ability to grasp the concepts we're dealing with. If that's all you have to fall back on, then you've got no real argument.
Second, your statement about mutations is just plain wrong. For example, here's a page that lists several examples of beneficial mutations in humans. What's interesting about comparing beneficial and harmful mutations among humans, is we're far more likely to find the negative ones. After all, people only go to the doctor or hospital when they become sick or have some sort of genetic disorder. There could be people out there with all sorts of immunities, and we'd never even know about it because they wouldn't be examined.
Unless you're trying to make a point, then so what? Like I said, I can pull links out of a hat, too.
Upvote
0
Can you answer me a few questions about this flood?
1) Which layers of the geologic column are flood layers?
2) How did raindrops and saltflats get preserved during a flood?
3) Why didn't Noah die from the heat released by that much falling water?
4) Why are the big heavy dinosaur bodies on top, but the light trilobyte bodies on bottom?
5) You never find shark teeth below a certain level. But they're everywhere after that. Why is that?
Upvote
0
Rules for defending scientific theories and hypotheses with religious fervor:
1. When someone questions a theory or hypothesis, defend it by saying it is so commonly accepted among reputable scientists that it's as good as fact.
2. When someone disproves that same theory or hypothesis, point out that the great thing about science is that it is self-correcting. Then start defending the new theory/hypothesis with rule #1.
1. When someone questions a theory or hypothesis, defend it by saying it is so commonly accepted among reputable scientists that it's as good as fact.
2. When someone disproves that same theory or hypothesis, point out that the great thing about science is that it is self-correcting. Then start defending the new theory/hypothesis with rule #1.
Upvote
0
See, what you apparently still haven't figured out is that if you have a point, you have to be willing to back it up. You made a point about there not being any transitional fossils, so I merely to referred you to examples of transitional fossils.
Obviously, if I just say "yes there are", and don't try to back it up in some way, then my assertation is pointless. However, there is a fine difference in arbitarily citing links (which you seem to favor) than actually citing links to support your position. As I pointed out, that "Early Man" essay doesn't seem to support your positition one iota. So why bother linking it?
Oh, and quoting sources is fine, but as long as it's kept reasonable and the original reference is cited. Posting wholesale documents is a violation of copyright law (unless express permission for reproduction of said documents is given) and just plain bad debating form.
Upvote
0
Apparently, you either didn't read everything I wrote, or the point flew right over your head.In the case of various fossil hominids, the debate (among scientists) is not whether or not they are "transitional". Rather, it's where in the evolutionary mosaic they fit.
Anyway, if I may again refer to the quote from Dr. Oxford I posted a few pages back. In reference to his own work on Australopithecines and also the current "Millennium Man": "I don't think any of this stuff should ever be put VERY strongly because it is all sub-hypothesis, ready to be tested and failed with future work." source.
Gee, how dogmatic of him.
The theory of evolution is not in doubt here. Just bits and pieces of the evidence.
Upvote
0
Rules for defending creationism with religious fervour
1) if it doesn't agree with the bible, it isn't true
the end
1) if it doesn't agree with the bible, it isn't true
the end
Upvote
0
Similar threads
